CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel

164 ITR 102High Court1987#2898 most cited

What is CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to establish any claim for deduction of expenditure when computing taxable income, especially when parties from whom purchases were allegedly made deny such transactions before sales tax authorities.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel · deduction for expenditure · taxable income · onus on assessee · genuineness of purchases · denial of sales · sales tax authorities

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatormere change of opinionspecified authoritysection 292bsection 148a(b)section 292addition under section 68change of opinionsection 149section 148asection 29tangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

Contour Entertainment Inc., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2416/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2416/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Contour Entertainment Inc. बिधम/ Dcit(It) 2(1)(1) C/O Rashmi Modi & Co. Air Building, Mumbai. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 7, Vallabhji Kanji Building, 173/175, Princess Street, Opp. Corporation Bank, Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc3711D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri V. Sreekar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 23.01.2017 Passed To Pursuant Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp' For Short) U/S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal As Read: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar (DR)
Section 144Section 144C(13)

…actory & Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 125 ITR 293(SC), it was held that where an assessee claims a deduction, the onus is on him to prove al material facts on record to substantiate his claim. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas Patel 164 ITR 102 (Gui) held that mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of the expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee and it is his duty to prove the payment especially when the AO doubts the genuineness of the same. What we find from the records is that it is a case where the appellant has failed to adduce/sufficien…

M/S.Authentiques Eyewear Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 826/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Authentique Eye The Income Tax Officer, Wear P. Ltd. Row House Ward 4(1), Thane. Vs. No. 1, Opp. Paras Yamaha Centre, Ambadi Cross Road, Vasai Road, Thane- 401202. Pan No. Aaica1157H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Authentique Eye The Income Tax Officer, Wear P. Ltd. Row House Ward 4(1), Thane. Vs. No. 1, Opp. Paras Yamaha Centre, Ambadi Cross Road, Vasai Road, Thane- 401202. PAN No. AAICA1157H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, AR Revenue by : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR Date of Hearing : 08/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 13/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment y…

Bholanath R.Shukla, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-2, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 4505/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of the expenses claimed, in the return filed. Mere filing of vouchers without supporting bills does not prove the genuineness of the claim of having incurred the expenses. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of C1T Vs, Chandravilas Hotel (Gujarat) 164 ITR 102 and CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd. (Delhi) 203 Taxman 123, Moreover, it is also ascertained after field enquiry that the assessee has claimed much higher than the salary payment actually made to his employees. The Assessing Officer held that on the basis of the facts that emerged during the course of survey action with, regard to claim of salary & wages…

Vedangi Ventures, Badlapur vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 564/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…the parties, but failed to do so. When expenditure (purchase) is claimed to have been incurred, initial burden will be on the appellant to prove that purchases were genuine. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102(Guj). This onus has not been discharged by the appellant. The statement or affidavit filed by the Hawala dealers before the Sales Tax Department has evidentiary value, which cannot be ignored. If the purchases were genuine in toto, the appellant could have filed counter affidavit and should not have paid the VAT on behalf of the Hawala dealers/un…

Sandeep Marwah vs. Assistant CIT

ITA/1249/2018HC Delhi12 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)

…er an expenditure is incurred or nay item is purchased through credit card, there is always a bill which is signed by the credit holder and the showroom/shopkeeper given a copy thereof to the person/buyer. In the case of CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), it was held that mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is has duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness therefore. It appears that the assessee does not want to product such bill before the assessing authority…

Sandeep Marwah vs. Assistant CIT

ITA/1250/2018HC Delhi12 Nov 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 260ASection 37(1)

…er an expenditure is incurred or nay item is purchased through credit card, there is always a bill which is signed by the credit holder and the showroom/shopkeeper given a copy thereof to the person/buyer. In the case of CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), it was held that mere production of vouchers in support of the claim for deduction of expenditure would not prove the claim made by the assessee. It is has duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness therefore. It appears that the assessee does not want to product such bill before the assessing authority…

S4 Interior, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4422/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodm/S S4 Interior, Assisstant Commissioner Of Income A-301E, Sumit Samarth Tax-25(3), Arcade, Tatya Tope Nagar, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Near Railway Station, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (West), Mumbai Mumbai- 400062 Pan – Abgfs7239E Assessee Revenue Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.R Revenue By: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-32, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘Act’), Dated 23.09.2015. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 430,707/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…1988) 171 ITR 405 (Patna) (v). A.M Shah & Co. Vs. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (Guj) (vi). CIT Vs. S. Krishnaswamy & Sons (1996) 219 ITR 157 (Mad) (vii). CIT Vs. Swarup Cold Storage & General Mills (1982) 136 ITR 435 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (2007) 291 ITR 202 (Guj) It was averred by the ld. D.R, that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any force and did not merit acceptance, thus, the same may be dismissed. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on P a g e | 6 ITA No. 4422/Mum/2017 AY 2009-10…

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 148Section 69C

…s failed to prove the genuineness of purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex. He further relied upon the following case laws to come to the conclusion that the entire purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex should be disallowed:- (a) CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (1987)(164 ITR 102)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (2011)(203 Taman 123)(Delhi) (c) Champalal Choudhary (2012)(54 SOT 398)(JP) 3 M/s. Inter Carat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (d) J.R Solvent Industries (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (209 Taxman 18)(P & H) (e) CIT Vs. La Medica (250 ITR 575)(Delhi) The AO further held that even if the assessee was able to reconcile the quantity details,…

Navnidhi Steel and Engg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…btained bogus bills from these parties who were benami entities of Mr Bhanwarlal Jain. Books of accounts were rejected by the A.O. u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. The AO relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Chandra Vilas Hotels (1987) 164 ITR 102(Guj.) , CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Limited (1982) 135 ITR 546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1…

Samkit Diamonds Exporters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4133/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay K ParikhFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vidyadhar,Sr DR
Section 143(3)

…s have shifted, the assessee is expected to know their current address as the onus is on the assessee (legal heir) to prove that the purchases were genuine. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in CIT Vs Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj.). This onus has not been discharged by the assessee. Thus the A.O observed in such situation when stock has been reconciled , it could be concluded that the assessee has obtained accommodation bills from concerns/entities controlled by Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain Group while actual purchases were made from grey market in cash without bill and to…

Popatlal N. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our said observations

ITA 5939/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Popatlal N. Shah Acit 19(2), बिधम/ 1802, Panchratna, Income Tax Office, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Mumbai- 400004. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) : The Acit-19(2), M/S Popatlal N. Shah, बिधम/ Room No. 207, 1802, Panchratna, Opera Matru Mandir, House Mumbai 400051 Vs. Mumbai-400 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Mrs. Aarti Visangi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s have shifted, the assessee is expected to know their current address as the onus is on the assessee (legal heir) to prove that the purchases were genuine. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in CIT Vs Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj.). This onus has not been discharged by the assessee.” 4. The A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations concluded that the assessee had purchased the goods under consideration, though not from the aforementioned hawala parties, but had purchased the same from the open/grey market. The A.O after deliberating at length on the modus opera…

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Manek Gems & Art International, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 230/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Raj A. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…y have shifted, the assessee is expected to know their current address as the onus is on the assessee (legal heir) to prove that the purchases were genuine. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in CIT Vs Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj). This onus has not been discharged by the assessee.” Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid observations the A.O holding a strong conviction that as the assessee had failed to discharge the onus P a g e | 6 ITA No. 230 to 232/Mum/2017 Manek Gems Vs. ACIT19(1), Mumbai in respect of proving the genuineness and veracity of the transactions of p…

R.R.Chemicals & Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 61/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 61/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 62/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 20 10-11)

Section 133(6)

…substantiate its purchases. The notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act to the suspicious suppliers have been returned back unserved. The AO took the support of decisions rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas hotel (164 ITR 102), Delhi high Court in the case of Modi Stone Ltd (203 Taxman 123), Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of J.R Solvent industries P Ltd (209 Taxman 18) and the decision rendered by Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of Champa Lal Choudhary (54 SOT 398) and observed that the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases lie upon the assessee and mer…

Bharat Copy Centre P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 798/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

…dealers by the sales tax department, the AO took the view that the statement given by them before the sales tax authorities has been corroborated. The AO placed reliance on the decision rendered by Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (164 ITR 102) and Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Modi Stone Ltd (203 Taxmann 123) to take the view that mere production of vouchers in support of claim for deduction of expenditure would not prove the claim of the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to prove payment especially when the genuineness is doubted. Accordingly he disallowed the purchas…

Sitaram Chemicals, Ambernath vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1330/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Sunil S.GadreFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘SMC’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member ITA No.1330/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 M/s.Sitaram Chemicals Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ W/103 MIDC, Morivali Circle 2 Ambernath Industrial Estate Kalyan Vs. Ambernath– 421501. PAN : AALFS8541H. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Sunil S.Gadre ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 18.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.20…

Suresh L. Satyani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3452/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…btained bogus bills from these parties who were benami entities of Mr Bhanwarlal Jain. Books of accounts were rejected by the A.O. u/s 145(3) of 1961 Act. The AO relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v Chandra Vilas Hotels (1987) 164 ITR 102(Guj.) , CIT v. Navasari Cotton and Silk Mills Limited (1982) 135 ITR 546(Guj) and Karjan Co-operative Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT (1993) 109 ITR 17(Guj.) , Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers Private Limited in ITA no. 120/2012 dated 07-01-2013 and CIT v. N R Portfolio Private Limited in ITA no. 1…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…took the view that the assessee could not prove the 4 M/s. Heeralal Meghraj Doshi purchase of material beyond doubt. The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (164 ITR 102) and also certain other decisions to reiterate that the onus lies on the assessee to prove the claim of deduction for expenditure. The Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee has failed to produce the suppliers before him. 6. The Department had conducted a survey operation in the hands of the assessee u/s. 133A of the Act. During the c…