CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

Aluwind Architectural Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Aluwind Architectural Private Limited Dcit-12(1)(1) 70C, Govt. Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Charkop, Hindustan Naka Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Near Reliance Energy, Kandivali Mumbai-400 067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca-5798-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harsh Kothari-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Udaya Jakke-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 16/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…ssee, by way of elaborate written submissions opposed the additions made by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix and inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fabs Ltd. [355 ITR 290] & CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the impugned additions to 30% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It transpires that the revenue has not agitated the stand of Ld. first appellate authority any further. 4. The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book,…

ITO - WD- 32 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Bijal Nirish Masalia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…the stated purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee. The learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] & Bholanath Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] restricted the impugned addition to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has not appealed any further. 3. Both the representative had advanced arguments which we have duly considered. 4. We are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

…d.) (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) Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) (34) Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO (IT Appeal no. 2801 & 2937 (Ahd) of 2008 dated 20.05.2011 (35) Vijay Proteins Ltd., vs. ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) (36) CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj) (37) Vijay M. Mistry Construciton Ltd., 355 ITR 498 (Guj) 8.3 The learned CIT(A) observed that the above cases are directly applicab…

ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Actube Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

…hese parties through normal banking channel have been reflected were submitted during the assessment proceedings. Identical issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income v. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. Reported in 355 ITR 290 (Guj.). In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in finished fabrics. The AO disallowed purchase amounting to Rs.40,69,546/- 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 su…

Income Tax Officer 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Anil P Sawardekar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…thout actual purchase of material. The Ld. first appellate authority, after due consideration of factual matrix and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] restricted the impugned additions to 25% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 2.4 The Ld. DR has advanced arguments to submit that the additional evidences filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings were not confronted to Ld. AO. It has further been submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified…

Electromac Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)-5, Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & G. Manjunatha

…sessee must have purchased goods from the gray market and to cover up such purchases obtained bills from accommodation entry providers and accordingly by taking support from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)}estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases ranging from 25% to 34.40% depending upon facts of each case. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assesseehad filed elaborate written submissions on the issue which has been extracted at para 4 on page 5 to 9 of…

Electromac Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)-5, Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & G. Manjunatha

…sessee must have purchased goods from the gray market and to cover up such purchases obtained bills from accommodation entry providers and accordingly by taking support from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)}estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases ranging from 25% to 34.40% depending upon facts of each case. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assesseehad filed elaborate written submissions on the issue which has been extracted at para 4 on page 5 to 9 of…

Income Tax Officer-11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Gajanana Industries (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…as well as on merits. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the factual matrix and relying upon various judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290, restricted the additions to 12% of alleged bogus purchases. The disallowance of depreciation was also directed to be recomputed after considering the profit on alleged bogus purchases @12%. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The assessee has filed an application u/r 27 to submit that the reasons for reopening were not reco…

Ashoka Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ashoka Builders V. The Asst. Cit Range – 19(3) 209-212, Veena Beena Piramal Chamber Turner Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aabfa 3175 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

…added as non-genuine purchases. 7. We find that the Assessing Officer accepted the sales from the said purchases as genuine without there being any purchases there cannot be any sales. 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. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the ITAT in estimating the profit element from purchases at 12.5%. Similar view has be…

Income Tax Officer 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ami Riddhi Chem Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(1) Office No. 16, 2Nd Floor Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor Building B-1, Laxmi Nivas Chs Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pai Nagar, S.V. Road Mumbai-400 020 Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aagca 7111 H (Assessee) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor Office No. 3, Gokul Apartment Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road Mumbai-400 020 Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aagca 7111 H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Department By : Shri Abdul Hakeem M

…the Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element in the purchases have to be considered when the sales have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. He followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd., [355 ITR 290], CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451], CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries [316 ITR 274] and various other decisions, while holding so he observed as under: - “5.3. I have gone through the assessment order and submissions made in this regard. I have also gone through the survey report submitted by A.O. along with the remand report. It is noted that…

Ami Riddhi Chem Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(1) Office No. 16, 2Nd Floor Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor Building B-1, Laxmi Nivas Chs Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pai Nagar, S.V. Road Mumbai-400 020 Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aagca 7111 H (Assessee) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Ami Riddhi Chem Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 226, 2Nd Floor Office No. 3, Gokul Apartment Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Haridas Nagar, Shimpoli Road Mumbai-400 020 Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aagca 7111 H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh Department By : Shri Abdul Hakeem M

…the Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element in the purchases have to be considered when the sales have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. He followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd., [355 ITR 290], CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451], CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries [316 ITR 274] and various other decisions, while holding so he observed as under: - “5.3. I have gone through the assessment order and submissions made in this regard. I have also gone through the survey report submitted by A.O. along with the remand report. It is noted that…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

…equent sales details are furnished during assessment proceeding as contended in the submission. Under the facts therefore I am of the opinion that only the embedded profit in the transactions is to be considered. 5.2 In the case of Bholenath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj), the Hon'ble Tribunal held that purchases were made from bogus parties. However, in this case, entire quantity of opening stock, purchase and quantity manufactured during the year under consideration were sold by the assessee. Hon'ble Tribunal held that goods were purchased from some other party and profit amount embedded in such amount amo…

Bharat Talakchand Doshi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Bharat Talakchand Asst. Commissioner Of Doshi, 9, Krishna Kunj, 2Nd Income Tax 17(1), R. No. Vs. Floor, 148-P K Road, 117, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mulund West, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400080. Pan No. Aabpd9162B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Jyoti Laxmi Nayak, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

…can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of Shri Bharat Talakchand Doshi 6 CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). We are of the considered view that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has rightly brought to tax the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases by estimating @ 12.5% of Rs.1,17,50,788/- which comes to Rs.14,68,848/- and we confirm it. The enhancement of Rs. 1.02.81.940/- made by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 7.…

Halan International (Prop. Om Harimahabir Prasad Halan), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…pute that the assessee A.Y. 2009-10& 2010-11 had earned meager gross profit i.e. 0.30% on sale turnover of Rs.92,96,64,130/-. The CIT(A) has decided the case of the assessee on the basis of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Plyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 and in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 2019 Taxman 85 (Guj). In the above settled law the profit embedded to the transaction was taken into consideration and in these cases, the profit embedded to the transaction was to the extent of 12.5%. In the instant case, the profit is very low. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…288 ITR 10(SC) b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 355 ITR 390(Guj) I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 c) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290(Guj.) 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A) has filed an appeal with tribunal. The contentions are raised by learned counsel for the assessee that assessment was firstly completed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A of the 1961 Act on 21.03.2014. Later notice was issued by AO u/s 148 of t…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…288 ITR 10(SC) b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 355 ITR 390(Guj) I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 c) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290(Guj.) 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A) has filed an appeal with tribunal. The contentions are raised by learned counsel for the assessee that assessment was firstly completed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 153A of the 1961 Act on 21.03.2014. Later notice was issued by AO u/s 148 of t…

Jethmal Bansraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Jethmal Bansraj Jain, Ito-19(2)(1), Shop No. 1, R.K. Wadi, V.P. Matrumandir, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Road, 2Ndparsiwada Lane, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaapj8298D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/05/2019

…e said purchases, the AO came to a finding that the assessee must have purchased from open market from some parties best known to him. Thereafter relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and M/s Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd. 355 ITR 290, the AO estimated the profit @ Shri Jethmal Bansraj Jain 12.5% on the said amount of Rs.42,85,811/- and thus made a disallowance of Rs.5,35,726/-. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the reasons given by the AO and confirmed the disallowance of Rs.5,35,726/-. 5. The Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the Ld…