CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290High Court2013#73 most cited

What is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

712

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,887 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab · 355 ITR 290 · bogus purchases · accommodation entry · unexplained expenditure · profit margin · gross profit rate · section 37(1) · section 68 · section 153A · genuineness of purchases · entire purchases addition

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 37(1)Section 153ASection 132Section 133(6)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 44absection 69csection 131commissioner (appeals)section 132(4)accommodation entrysection 145section 37(1)section 133(6)escapement of incomeunexplained expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

Shri. Rohit Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 173/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…atement showing cheque payments to the said party, the AO came to the finding that the assessee must have made the purchases from open market from some parties best known to him. Follwing the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P.Sheth 355 ITR 290, the Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit @12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 98,60,943/-, which comes to Rs.12,32,618/-. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A), vide order dated 02.11.2018 confirmed the 3. above estimation made by the AO. 3 Shri Rohit Mehta 4. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the order of the Ld.CIT(A), which is reasonable may be affi…

M/S Rolex Steel & Engg Co, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4538/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

…rom weighbridge, excise gate pass, goods inward register. Therefore, considering the facts and 4 M/s Rolex Steel & Engg circumstances of the case and relying on the decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and M/s Bholenath Poly Fab P. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), estimated the profit @ 12.5% on the disputed purchases of Rs.46,92,697/- which comes to Rs.5,86,587/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 24.06.2019, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order on the basis of material available on record, confirming the e…

Shri. Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4717/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain V. Income Tax Officer -19(2)(3) C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 297 Tardeo Road Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400007 Wille Mansion, 1St Floor Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aadpj2988D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(1)Section 147

…not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply becaus…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr. Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar, Mumbai

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4689/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(2)(3) V. Shri Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar 196K, Gaiwadi, Jss Road Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor Girgaon, Mumbai - 400004 Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpk8434B (Appellant) (Respondent) Chaitee Londhe Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus pu…

Ramesh D Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4673/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Ramesh D. Jain (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1) Shop No. 3,56/64 Matru Mandir, Grant Road Nanubhai Desai Road Mumbai – 400 007 C.P.Tank, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aafhr4464J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Gopalkrishna Rao Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply becaus…

Nayan Shukla, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1629/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…both the years. 7. We have heard the Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noticed that the CIT(A) has applied profit rate at 12.5% by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)]. As the CIT(A) has applied a reasonable profit rate, we do not want to interfere in the same. Hence, the order of CIT(A) is upheld in both the years and appeals of assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January 2021. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL MAHAVIR S…

ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4409/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 153A

…,94,53,432/- as bogus and unexplained. In such situation, whether entire amount of purchases has to be added back or the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subject to tax, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court1 in the case CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 has opined that only the profit element would be subject to tax. The observation of Hon'ble Court is as under:- "6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties form whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal…

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4408/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 153A

…,94,53,432/- as bogus and unexplained. In such situation, whether entire amount of purchases has to be added back or the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subject to tax, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court1 in the case CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 has opined that only the profit element would be subject to tax. The observation of Hon'ble Court is as under:- "6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties form whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

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

ITA 2806/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 153A

…,94,53,432/- as bogus and unexplained. In such situation, whether entire amount of purchases has to be added back or the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subject to tax, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court1 in the case CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 has opined that only the profit element would be subject to tax. The observation of Hon'ble Court is as under:- "6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties form whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

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

ITA 2805/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 153A

…,94,53,432/- as bogus and unexplained. In such situation, whether entire amount of purchases has to be added back or the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subject to tax, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court1 in the case CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 has opined that only the profit element would be subject to tax. The observation of Hon'ble Court is as under:- "6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties form whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal…

ITO 21 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B Musale, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-21(3)(1), Ramesh B Musale, Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.-382, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Adarsh Nagar, Building No. 23, Mumbai-400012. Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Ajtpm 0744 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO-21(3)(1), Ramesh B Musale, Room No. 207, 2nd floor, Vs. Room No.-382, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Adarsh Nagar, Building No. 23, Mumbai-400012. Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. PAN No. AJTPM 0744 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. Smita Verma, DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Date of pronouncement : 18/01/2021 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is…

Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…rder dated January 10, 2011 passed in Tax Appeal No. 1090 of 2009-since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd. vide order dated October 23, 2012, passed in Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2012 – since reported in [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj).” Recently the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in case of Vijay Kedia (HUF) Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 197 & 248/JP/2016) decided on 29-01-2018 held as under: - “We further noted that when the corresponding sale is not in dispute then the question is only regarding the correct amount of purchases and verification of the same. The Ld. DR has relied upon…

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shoreline Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2094/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

…u/s 145(3) of the Act and a fair and just estimate should be made to work out the profit embedded in such bogus purchases. 11.13 The observations made in the preceding paragraphs are also reinforced by the judgment of CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290, wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed that despite of the ITAT's findings that the purchases may have been made from bogus parties, the entire amount covered under such purchases cannot be taxed but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in this rega…

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

ITA 2078/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2078, 2079, 2080, 2081, 2082, 2083 & 2084/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT, M/s. Sur Gems, Central Circle-3(1), Hw 4010 h Tower, Room No.1924, Bharat Diamond Bourse 19th Floor, Vs. BKC Bandra East, Air India Bldg., Mumbai – 400 051 Nariman Point, PAN: AAAFS2996R Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827 & 1828/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010…

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

ITA 1822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2078, 2079, 2080, 2081, 2082, 2083 & 2084/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 DCIT, M/s. Sur Gems, Central Circle-3(1), Hw 4010 h Tower, Room No.1924, Bharat Diamond Bourse 19th Floor, Vs. BKC Bandra East, Air India Bldg., Mumbai – 400 051 Nariman Point, PAN: AAAFS2996R Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1827 & 1828/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010…

ACIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Smt Pragna C. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed; the cross objection by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2993/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…4,47,793/- is being made this year u/s. 69C of the Act.” ITA No. 2993/MUM/2019 & CO No. 56/M/2020 3 Smt. Pragna C. Mehta In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision in CIT v. Simit Sheth 3. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), estimated the profit @ 12.5% of the purchases made from the bogus parties. 4. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the addition of Rs.12,12,468/- has been rightly made by the AO and the same be confirmed. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in…

ITO 27 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Niket Rajesh Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6288/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Tripathi (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6288/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITO 27(2)(4) बिधम/ Niket Rajesh Shah 4th Floor, Tower No.6, Room Prop. M/s. Pooja Herbs. Vs. No. 418, Vashi Rly. St. Shop No. 6, Rangwala Complex, Vashi, Navi Appts, Sanatorium Lane, M. Mumbai-400703. G. Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BATPS4631K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri V. Tripathi (DR) Assessee by: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing:…

ACIT - 18 (1), Mumbai vs. Deepa P. Manshani, Mumbai

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

ITA 5639/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5639/M/2018 & 5640/M/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit-18(1) बिधम/ Deepa P. Manshani Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, 76/78, Dwarakadas Bldg, Vs. Earnest House, Nariman Mangaldas Road, Lohar Point, Mumbai-400021. Chawl, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Altpm2676G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2020 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)- 29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.5639/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita. Nos.5639 & 5640/M/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Meena (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 69C

…and failed to confirm the transaction. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises Vs. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom). The CIT(A) has also reliance upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) in which it is specifically held that the profit ratio in the transaction should be taxed. By relying upon the above mentioned decisions, the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchase in sum of Rs.56,95,671/-. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. The profit ratio in the bogus purchase has…

M/S Nish Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2441/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Nish Gems V. Income Tax Officer – 21(2)(4) Unit No. 220, 2Nd Floor Piramal Chambers T.V. Industrial Estate, 248 Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 030 Pan: Aacfn0678B (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ise, the disallowance of purchases is clearly in order. The action of the assessing officer of disallowing a percentage of impugned purchases is in line with the view expressed in the decisions such as in the case of CIT vs. Bholanath PolyFab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 and thereafter in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 219 Taxman 85 (Gu]. 4.5. It is noted that there is nothing distinguishable to identify the sales as corresponding to the purchases. However, the submission that the margin on trading in polished diamonds is low is supported by the report of the Task Group for Diamond Sector submitted to…

ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyaz Ahmed Samiullah Khan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7043/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7043/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 26(2)(3) बिधम/ Niyaz Ahmed Samiullah Bldg. No. C-11, 7Th Floor,, Khan Vs. Room No. 711, Pratykshakar Room No.3, Sangam Mkt, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), 90 Feet Road, Khadi No. 3 Mumbai-400051. Netaji Nagar, Saki Naka, Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupk0087D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Tripathi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…is that the appellant only took bills from the above parties to explain the purchases made albeit from open market. Identical issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Bholanath 3 A.Y.2011-12 Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 355 ITR 290 (GUJ). The assessee was engaged in the business of trading in finished fabrics. The AO disallowed purchases as bogus/unexplained. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The issue was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal which concurred with the finding of the revenue authorities below that such purchase was made from bogus parties. A…