CIT v. M.K. Brothers

ACIT 25(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Shree Ganesh Developers, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…decision rendered in the case of Babulal C Borana (citation not given), where in it was held that the addition could not be sustained when it was not shown that the funds have flown back to the assessee. Identical view was taken in the case of M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249)(Guj). The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd (355 ITR 290) and CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth has held that the profit element involved in the alleged bogus purchases is required to be assessed. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal has deleted the addition re…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Gajani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No. 5171 to 5175/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2011-12 ACIT 25(1) MR. BHARAT GAJANI Pratyakshahkar Bhavan, R. No. 202 302 Shraddha Residency, Vs. 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chanavarkar Rd. Borivali (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AECPG1808C : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar, DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, AR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Gajani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No. 5171 to 5175/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2011-12 ACIT 25(1) MR. BHARAT GAJANI Pratyakshahkar Bhavan, R. No. 202 302 Shraddha Residency, Vs. 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chanavarkar Rd. Borivali (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AECPG1808C : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar, DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, AR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Gajani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No. 5171 to 5175/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2011-12 ACIT 25(1) MR. BHARAT GAJANI Pratyakshahkar Bhavan, R. No. 202 302 Shraddha Residency, Vs. 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chanavarkar Rd. Borivali (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AECPG1808C : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar, DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, AR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Gajani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No. 5171 to 5175/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2011-12 ACIT 25(1) MR. BHARAT GAJANI Pratyakshahkar Bhavan, R. No. 202 302 Shraddha Residency, Vs. 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chanavarkar Rd. Borivali (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AECPG1808C : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar, DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, AR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Gajani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No. 5171 to 5175/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2011-12 ACIT 25(1) MR. BHARAT GAJANI Pratyakshahkar Bhavan, R. No. 202 302 Shraddha Residency, Vs. 2nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Chanavarkar Rd. Borivali (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AECPG1808C : (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Suman Kumar, DR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kapadia, AR Date of Hearing : 14/02/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 08/05/2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: All…

Geolife Organics, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of all the assessees are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Geolife Organics Vs. Acit – 23(2), Mumbai- 301, Marathon Max, 400051 L.B.S.Marg, Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund(W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aahfg7722N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5), Mumbai- Shop No.756/54, Nanubhai 400 007 Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Acypc2583N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Jabarsingh B Daiya, Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai – R.No.16, 1St Floor, Mulji 400 007 Madhavji Building, 160, C.P.Tank Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Ahypd4454E Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Rajendra Nemichandji Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai – Chandan, 38, Ground Floor, 400 007 Alankar Building, 245/247, Khetwadi Lane, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aeypc6575L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Geolife Organics, Mumbai & Others

…conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Several decisions cited in support of the said argument are Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 2…

ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Zahid Abbas Mankad, Mumbai

…ed purchases made from the above parties,that the AO had also not ruled out the possibility of purchasing goods from grey market by the assessee, that once sales were accepted there was no reason to doubt the purchases.He referred to the cases of MK Brothers (163 ITR 249) and Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited. (216 Taxman 171) and held that under the act only net income could be taxed,that the transaction was not verifiable, that only income component was taxable and not the entire transaction amount, that generally in such cases additions were made based on the GP/NP ratio,that the AO had not ruled out th…

ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mohammedi Z. Kanchwala, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12

…lhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. La Medica 117 Taxman 628 and hence, the payments by cheque do not make the transaction genuine, therefore, 100% addition should have been made. 6. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 and held that the GP of this year is 12.79% and he further disallowed 5% of the purchases and partly allowed the appeal. We also find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.) held that where sales supported the purchases and payment was made through banks, merely…

Mohammedi. Z Kanchwala, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12

…lhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. La Medica 117 Taxman 628 and hence, the payments by cheque do not make the transaction genuine, therefore, 100% addition should have been made. 6. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 and held that the GP of this year is 12.79% and he further disallowed 5% of the purchases and partly allowed the appeal. We also find that Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.) held that where sales supported the purchases and payment was made through banks, merely…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. City Life Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of various case laws on this issue the additions so made by the AO have rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) relating to this issue. He has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “CIT vs. M.K. Brothers” (1987) 163 ITR 249 wherein it has been held that where there was nothing to indicate that the amount given by the assessee for the purchases made had come back to the assessee in any other form and where there was no evidence that the said concerns gave bogus vouchers to the assessee and even the statements made by the alleged suppliers in no way implicate the 9 IT…

City Life Developers, Mumbai vs. CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…of various case laws on this issue the additions so made by the AO have rightly been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) relating to this issue. He has brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of “CIT vs. M.K. Brothers” (1987) 163 ITR 249 wherein it has been held that where there was nothing to indicate that the amount given by the assessee for the purchases made had come back to the assessee in any other form and where there was no evidence that the said concerns gave bogus vouchers to the assessee and even the statements made by the alleged suppliers in no way implicate the 9 IT…

ITO WD 2(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Satyanarayan Agrawal, Thane

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, J.M. & Shri Rajesh Kumar, A.M

…wing opening balance creditor, purchases, payment and closing balance. Therefore, quantitatively has been made the sales are not doubted but addition of purchase makes negative. Therefore, relying upon the decision of Gujarat High Court CIT vs. M.K. Brothers, 163 ITR 249 (Guj). Therefore, our interference is not required. We also find that the assessee is claiming payment have been made through banking channel and department has no evidence to prove that beneficiary has received back cash after deducting some commission. Therefore, we confirm the action of CIT(A) in support of C.O. The Ld. A.R. has not pressed th…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNNAL MUMBAI BENCH ‘’I’’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA ( ACCOUNT MEMBER) I.T.A.Nos. 3020 to 3024/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT, 13(1)(1) [Erstwhile DCIT-9(2)] 117, CD Government Industrial Mumbai Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai- 67 PAN : AABCN9153N Appellant Respondent I.T.A.Nos. 3790 to 3794/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) DCIT, 13(1)(1), Mumbai V/s Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd 117, CD Government Industrial Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kan…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNNAL MUMBAI BENCH ‘’I’’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA ( ACCOUNT MEMBER) I.T.A.Nos. 3020 to 3024/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT, 13(1)(1) [Erstwhile DCIT-9(2)] 117, CD Government Industrial Mumbai Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai- 67 PAN : AABCN9153N Appellant Respondent I.T.A.Nos. 3790 to 3794/Mum/2015 ( Assessment years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 ) DCIT, 13(1)(1), Mumbai V/s Nihar Equipment Pvt Ltd 117, CD Government Industrial Estate, Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kan…

Metropolitan Eximchem Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground No 3 in assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…per the 6 Metropolitan Eximchem Ltd. decision Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. J.M.D. Computers & Communications Pvt. Ltd., S.I.P. (C) of No.28961 of 2009, the assessee must be given opportunity of cross-examination. In the case of CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) it was not proved that part of fund given by the assessee to this party had come back to the assessee in any form. The Ld. AR submitted that all the purchases are recorded and all payments have been reflected in books of account and also quantity details of purchases have been reflected in the stock register. Therefore, as per the decision of th…

Remi Process Plant and Machinery Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (A.Y : 2011-12) Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Remi Process Plant & Mumbai (Appellant) Machinery Ltd. 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) : M/S. Remi Process Plant & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Machinery Ltd. Mumbai 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Singh Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2017

…AR submitted that the assessee company has furnished copies of invoice, delivery challan, purchase order, copy of bank statement and account confirmation from the said party. Therefore, no addition should be made. He relied upon the decision of M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, CIT vs 250 ITR 476, CIT vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 220 Taxman 17 (Guj). 9. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. We find that in this case the assessee is a manufacturer of process of plant & machinery and generation of wind power and trading in steel goods. We find that in the case of purchaser, the assessee might have pur…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Remi Process Plant & Machinery Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (A.Y : 2011-12) Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Remi Process Plant & Mumbai (Appellant) Machinery Ltd. 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) : M/S. Remi Process Plant & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Machinery Ltd. Mumbai 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Singh Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2017

…AR submitted that the assessee company has furnished copies of invoice, delivery challan, purchase order, copy of bank statement and account confirmation from the said party. Therefore, no addition should be made. He relied upon the decision of M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, CIT vs 250 ITR 476, CIT vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 220 Taxman 17 (Guj). 9. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. We find that in this case the assessee is a manufacturer of process of plant & machinery and generation of wind power and trading in steel goods. We find that in the case of purchaser, the assessee might have pur…

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

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

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

…elies upon the following decisions for the proposition that no addition could be made on the basis of the statement given by the third party if the appellant is not given opportunity to cross- examine- 361 ITR 206 (Del) CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd. 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries Balaji Textiles Vs. DCIT 49 ITD 177 (Mum) 107 Taxmann 126 (ITAT Ahd) ITO Vs. Ghanshyam Steel Traders 122 Taxmann 32 (ITAT Gauhati) DCIT Vs. Brahmaputra Steels P. Ltd. ITO Vs. Agarwal Steel Traders 77 Taxman 95 (Chd) The appellant submits that without prejudice to the conte…