CIT v. M.K. Brothers

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

…he suppliers and other relating evidences are not produced before the assessing authority or before the first appellate authority. Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Bombay High Court. (4) The Hon'ble Gujarat High 'Court in the case of CIT v M.K.Brothers reported at 163 ITR 249 (5) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Radhika Creations (ITA No.692/2009) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of ITO v Permanand ' reported at 107 TTJ 395 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported; at 334 ITR 111 The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner o…

ITO WD 3(2), Thane vs. Rajendra B. Jain, Thane

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year 2009 – 10 Income Tax Officer V. Rajendra B Jain Ward 3(2), Thane Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Ashar It Park Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) -400 601 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Respondent By Shri N.A. Kulkarni C.O No.186/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2932/Mum/2016) Rajendra B Jain V. Income Tax Officer Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Ward 3(2), Thane Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Ashar It Park Thane (W) -400 601 Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri N.A. Kulkarni Respondent By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

…of the assessee. On the other hand ld.A.R submitted that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and Bombay High court in case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.. Moreover Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in M.K brothers 163 ITR 249 and he has relied upon the decision of Sanjay Oilcake Industry 316 ITR 274 decision of Gujaraj High Court and Gujarat High Court in case of Simit P sheth in 356 ITR 451 therefore he supports the action of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking at facts and circumstances of the case we found that CIT(A) hs…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

…efer and rely on the judgments below since the facts and circumstances of these judgments of these cases are applicable to the present case of the appellant. There are as under:- (i) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v M.K.Brothers reported at 163 ITR 249 has held that "It was clear from the Tribunal's order • that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The assessee was given credit facilities for a short duration and the payments were given by cheques. When that was so, it could not be said that the entries for the - purchases of the goods made, in the books of th…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Manek Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5586/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Manohar Manak, Alloys P L Tax Cir 4(2)(2), 44, C P Tank Road, C P Tank, Vs. R. No.642, 6Th Floor, Mumbsi-400002 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacm2688K अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Shivaji Gode प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Ms.Nimisha Bothara सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 7.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :16.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Revenue Are As Under :

…re the Sales tax department. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that no sales could be effected without purchases. He has further placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249). He has further relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the cae of ITO Vs. Premanand (2008)(25 SOT 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where t…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…efer and rely on the judgments below since the facts and circumstances of these judgments of these cases are applicable to the present case of the appellant. There are as under:- (i) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v M.K.Brothers reported at 163 ITR 249 has held that "It was clear from the Tribunal's order • that whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The assessee was given credit facilities for a short duration and the payments were given by cheques. When that was so, it could not be said that the entries for the - purchases of the goods made, in the books of th…

ACIT-21(1), Mumbai vs. Karan Builders & Associated, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit- 21(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Karan Builders & Associates, 31, Jaihind Cottage, Shahji Raje Marg, Vile Parle – E, Mumbai - 57 Pan/Gir No. Aaffk5037N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…d not be enough m absence of any other positive evidence to suggest that the goods was not purchased from the above named parties or that the money paid by the assessee were ultimately return to the assessee by the supplier. In the decision of CIT vs M.K.Bros 163 ITR 249 (Guj) also under similar circumstances the addition made on account of bogus purchases was held to be not valid. Merely because some of the persons did not respond to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6}, of the Act, it could not be taken that the transaction was not genuine as held in GP International Ltd 325 ITR 25 (P…

Govind Bhilu Rathod, Vasai vs. ITO WD 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accepted

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 439/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…re the Sales tax department. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that no sales could be effected without purchases. He has further placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249). He has further relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the cae of ITO Vs. Premanand (2008)(25 SOT 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where t…

Jai Hind Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6134 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Nariman Point, Vs. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6144 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ratan Samul प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran

…made payment through crossed cheque and Assessing Officer did not find that payment made came back to assessee, hence additions was deleted relying upon the case of Kashiram Textiles Mills (P.) Ltd. I also find that in the case of CIT vs. M.K. Brothers 11987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj), the assessee made certain purchases from some parties and made payment through cheques, and the ITO found that parties were not available for cross examination, and hence the ITO held those transactions to be bogus and added back the purchases to income of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in…

DCIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…13 v) Babulal C. Borana Vs. Third ITO, 282 TR 251(Bom) vi) Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT, 67 SOT 52(Mum Trib) vii) CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 220 taxman 17 (guj) viii) CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises pvt. Ltd., 216 taxman 171 ix) CIT Vs. M.K.Brothers, 163 ITR 249 x) ITO Vs. Premanand, 107 TTJ 395 xi) Arora Alloys Ltd., 370 ITR 372 8. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in their respective orders as well as considered the ratio laid down by various decisions cited by…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…13 v) Babulal C. Borana Vs. Third ITO, 282 TR 251(Bom) vi) Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT, 67 SOT 52(Mum Trib) vii) CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 220 taxman 17 (guj) viii) CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises pvt. Ltd., 216 taxman 171 ix) CIT Vs. M.K.Brothers, 163 ITR 249 x) ITO Vs. Premanand, 107 TTJ 395 xi) Arora Alloys Ltd., 370 ITR 372 8. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in their respective orders as well as considered the ratio laid down by various decisions cited by…

Allied Engineers and Elastomers, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S Allied Engineers & Income Tax Officer-18(1)(1), Elastomers, Earnest House, बनाम/ 404-A, Waghwadi, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7945H

…706/Mum/2013 dt 13.05,2015 , iii. ACIT, V/s Shri Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA NO 5246/ Mum/2013 dt 05.03.2015 , iv. ACIT V/s M/s G. V. Sons (ITA NOS 2238/2239/2240/ Mum/20l2 dt 05.12.2014, v. Babulal C.Borana V/s ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi. CIT V/s M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii. C1T V/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 216 Taxman 171 (Mag)(Bom) viii. ITO V/s Eagle Impex (ITA no. 5697/Mum./2010) ix. J.H. Metals V/s ITO 77ITD 71 (ASR)(TM) x. G.G. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL v/s DCIT 104 TT) 809 (Mum) xi. ITO v/s Surana Traders 921TD 212 (Mum) xii. M/s Vijay Protiens Ltd. V/s ACIT 58 ITD 428 (ITAT) Sanjay Oil C…

ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos. 4526 To 4528/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12 The Ito-14(1)(3), Shri Takhtmal Bhuralal बनाम/ Earnest House, Pichholiya, Vs. Nariman Point, (Prop. Metal Agencies), Mumbai-400 021 Room No. 28, 2Nd Floor, 204, Chandra Mahal, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400 002 C.O. Nos. 212 To 214/Mum/2015 (Arising Out Of I.Ta Nos. 4526 To 4528/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 To 2011-12 Shri Takhtmal Bhuralal The Ito-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Pichholiya, Earnest House, Vs. (Prop. Metal Agencies), Nariman Point, Room No. 28, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 021 204, Chandra Mahal, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai-400 002

…e through banking channel. Though the AO has alleged that the payments to these parties were made after substantial lapse of time, however there is no evidence to prove that the cash has flown back to the appellant. In the case of CIT vs. M.K. Brothers [1987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj), the assessee made certain purchases from some parties and made payment through cheques, and the ITO found that parties were not available to cross examine and that payments were shown to have been made after substantial lapse of time after date of purchase, and hence the ITO held those transactions to be bogus and added back the purchases…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Parshva Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5288/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" ACIT-25(2) M/…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

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

…iance was placed by ld. AR on the following judicial pronouncements :- i) ITO vs. Permanand [107 TTJ 395 (Jodh); ii) DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, [ITA 6727/M/2012(Mum); (iii) ITO vs. D.N. Shah & Co. [2 TTJ 1217 (Ahd)]; iv) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers [(1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj)] v) M/s Imperial imp & exp vs ITO(ITA 5427/Mum/2015) vi) Deepak Popat Lal Ghada vs. ITO(ITA 6203/Mum/2013) vii) DCIT vs. Shri Jitendra S. Motani [ITA 6178/M/2007 (Mum)] CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT [316 ITR 274 (Guj)] viii) 14. On the other hand, it was contended by learned DR that the AO had received information that the purc…

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2) M/S. Pankaj Enterprises 46-A, 2Nd Floor, Ganjawala Apt. No.2 C-11 Bldg., Room No.106, Pratyakshakar Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Ganjawala Lane,Borivali(W),Mumbai-92. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 2176 J (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" Revenue By: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.05.2013,Of The Cit (A)-35, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal.None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee .We Are Deciding The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Departmental Representative (Dr).

…cting the payment made to various venders for the purchases affected for the year under consideration. The assessee referred to the cases of Nikunj Eximps Enterprises Private Limited (ITA No.5604 of 2010),Leaders Valves (P)Limited (265 ITR 435), M.K.Brothers (163 ITR 249). It was further argued that the full details of purchases were submited during the course of assessment, that the purchase invoices showed addresses of the sellers, description of the goods,that the payments were made by the cheques, that the AO himself had agreed that 2 5238/M/13-Pankaj purchases of the assessee, per se were not the issue, th…