CIT v. M.K. Brothers

Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1 बनाम/ House No. 1, Green Park, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. A-Wing, 1St Floor, Wayale Nagar Khandakpada, Bhiwandi-421302 Kalyan (W), Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aajcs1619M

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…/2013) 8. ACIT 11(2) Vs. Iqbal M. Chagala, Palloni Mansion ITAno. 877/Mum/2013, ITAT, Mumbai 9. Hon. Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251. 10. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs M.K. Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 11. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 9 ITA No.1288 & CO 191/Mum/2017. M/s.Jostars Orogotech Private Limited. 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment dated 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs.…

Mayur Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.5. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assessee should not suffer. However, on behalf of the R…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Balkrishna Naik, Ambernath

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…y the assessee is not being doubted. However, the source of material purchased and consumed be claimed to be from the hawala dealers is being rejected for want of proper supporting evidences. (g) Further the assessee relies upon the case laws i) M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) & ii) Nlkunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 216 Taxmann 171 (Bom.) in support of his claim. Both the aforesaid case laws are perused and it is noticed that in both the cases purchases were treated as genuine by the Hon'ble High Courts when they were not verifiable due non availability of the purchase parties. However, in the case of the assess…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Vijay Balkrishna Naik, Ambernath

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

…y the assessee is not being doubted. However, the source of material purchased and consumed be claimed to be from the hawala dealers is being rejected for want of proper supporting evidences. (g) Further the assessee relies upon the case laws i) M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) & ii) Nlkunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 216 Taxmann 171 (Bom.) in support of his claim. Both the aforesaid case laws are perused and it is noticed that in both the cases purchases were treated as genuine by the Hon'ble High Courts when they were not verifiable due non availability of the purchase parties. However, in the case of the assess…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 5.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

…before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” C.O. No.06 to 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain 2.6 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Exim Trade Links (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Asst. Cit Cir 6 (2)(2) Vs. M/S. Exim Trade Links R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan (India) P. Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate 31/33, Nishanpada, Dongri Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaace8448B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…lloni Mansion' ITA no. 877/Mum/2013, ITAT, Mumbai 3 M/s. Exim Trade Links (India) Pvt. Ltd., 9. Hon. Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251. 10. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs MX Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 11. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment date 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15.…

Mody Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

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

…697/Mum/2010) (m) Madhukant B. Gandhi vs. ITO (ITA No. 1 950/Mum/2009) (n) CIT vs. President Industries [258 ITR 654 (Guj.)] (o) CIT vs. Baichand Ajit Kumar [263 ITR 610 (MP)] (p) CIT vs. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. [285 ITR 435 (P&H)] (q) CIT vs. M. K. Brothers [163 ITR 249 (Guj.)] 5.3 In the appellant's submission, appellant states that appellant had furnished names and addresses of disputed parties, ledger accounts of suppliers, purchase bills, delivery challans, bank statements evidencing payment by account payee cheques, quantity tally and sale bills to justify the genuineness of recorded purchase and payments t…

Shekasa Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aaacs7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 14/09/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assessee…

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. T M Mohamedally, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-14(2)(2), M/S T M Mohamedally Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Hararwala Bldg. बनाम/ Earnest House, 112, Lohar Chawl, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aacft2448M

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- 11 T. M. Mohamedaly “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did…

Kshitj Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Kaysons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Cir.4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.6. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- “Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee went in second appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the transactions in question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…