CIT v. M.K. Brothers

163 ITR 249High Court1987#319 most cited

What is CIT v. M.K. Brothers authority for?

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M.K. Brothers · M.K. Brothers · Section 69C · Section 68 · Income Tax Act 1961 · genuineness of purchases · unexplained expenditure · burden of proof · non-production of party · banking channels · assessment procedure

Also reported as

30 Taxmann 547

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 69CSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

Issues it is cited on

unexplained expendituresection 69cgenuineness of the transactionsection 131section 133(6)section 69section 132previous yearsection 13personsection 148section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. M.K. Brothers

DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M/s Asian Star Company Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACA4856B Assessee by : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, ARs Revenue by : Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR Date of hearing: 28.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 23.05.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ta…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

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

ITA 122/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, GIDC, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. PAN No. AAMCS 4421 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue IT(SS)A Nos. 44, 45, 50 & 122/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15) D.C.I.T., Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Surat. A-26, Central Park, GID…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 115/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, GIDC, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. PAN No. AAMCS 4421 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue IT(SS)A Nos. 44, 45, 50 & 122/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15) D.C.I.T., Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Surat. A-26, Central Park, GID…

M/S. Shree Ram Texolene Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shri Ram Texolene Private Limited, I.T.O., B-704Plaza, Ring Road, Ward-2(1)(2), Vs. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Surat. Pan No. Aadcs 3881 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Shri Ram Texolene Private Limited, I.T.O., B-704, President Plaza, Ring Road, Ward-2(1)(2), Vs. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Surat. PAN No. AADCS 3881 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Richa Tosniwal, AR Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learne…

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Surat vs. M/S. Rajlaxmi Infra, Surat

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…no addition can be made on mere suspicious without bringing 13 Rajlaxmi Infra any cogent evidence on record. To support assessees submission, assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) and ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Akruti Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.2551/Ahd/2006. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the contents of assessment order and submission of assessee and relying on the case law filed by assessee granted substantial relief to the assessee in deleting the addition of unsecured loan and sustained the a…

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…not possible-since suppliers were not produced it is possible that appellant has made purchases from unregistered dealer to get benefits of margin of purchases- hence addition is restricted to Rs. 50,000. > Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M.K. Brothers. (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj M/s Grace Development Associates. Mumbai. "Whether the said transactions were bogus or not was a question of fact. The Tribunal has also pointed out that nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the appellant to these parties came back to the appellant in any form. It is further observed by the Tribunal that there is n…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhadda International, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6692/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) further referred to case laws relied upon by the assessee as under :- 8 ITA Nos.6408 & 6409/Del./2016 ITA Nos.6691 & 6692/Del./2016 “The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M K Brothers (1987), 163 ITR 249 held that merely on the statement of Seller it cannot be held that purchases are bogus. The Hon’ble Delhi High COUJ1 vide order dated 22.01.2014 in the case CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System Private Limited held that in any case when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed pur…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhadda International, Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6691/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) further referred to case laws relied upon by the assessee as under :- 8 ITA Nos.6408 & 6409/Del./2016 ITA Nos.6691 & 6692/Del./2016 “The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M K Brothers (1987), 163 ITR 249 held that merely on the statement of Seller it cannot be held that purchases are bogus. The Hon’ble Delhi High COUJ1 vide order dated 22.01.2014 in the case CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System Private Limited held that in any case when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed pur…

M/S Dhadda International, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6409/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) further referred to case laws relied upon by the assessee as under :- 8 ITA Nos.6408 & 6409/Del./2016 ITA Nos.6691 & 6692/Del./2016 “The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M K Brothers (1987), 163 ITR 249 held that merely on the statement of Seller it cannot be held that purchases are bogus. The Hon’ble Delhi High COUJ1 vide order dated 22.01.2014 in the case CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System Private Limited held that in any case when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed pur…

M/S Dhadda International, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 6408/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Ld. CIT (A) further referred to case laws relied upon by the assessee as under :- 8 ITA Nos.6408 & 6409/Del./2016 ITA Nos.6691 & 6692/Del./2016 “The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M K Brothers (1987), 163 ITR 249 held that merely on the statement of Seller it cannot be held that purchases are bogus. The Hon’ble Delhi High COUJ1 vide order dated 22.01.2014 in the case CIT vs. Sunrise Tooling System Private Limited held that in any case when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed pur…

M/S Silvex & Co., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Meena (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 69C

…assessee. When the matter had been decided by the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, no interference was called for in the matter. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Revenue against this judgment : [2001] 247 ITR (St.) 35. 163 ITR 249 CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (Guj.) Income from undisclosed sources – Purchases made by assessee – Subsequent statements by sellers in sales tax proceedings that they had issued bogus vouchers – No evidence that bogus vouchers had been given to assessee – Assessee’s payments made by cheque – Amounts represented by purchases cannot be assessed as income…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aw PB Page No. 6-7) held that where sales supported the purchases and payment was made through banks, merely because suppliers had not appeared before AO, the purchase could not be treated as bogus. b) Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M.K. Bros. (1987)163 ITR 249 (Guj.)(HC)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 8-9) Purchases made by assessee. Subsequent statements by sellers in Sales Tax proceedings that they had issued bogus vouchers. No evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to assessee. Payments by account payee cheques. Amount represented purchases cannot be disallowed. c) CIT v Hi Lux Automotive (P.) Ltd.…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek L. Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 344/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.344/Srt/2019 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Abhishek L.Jain 2(3)(7), Room No. 414, 4Th Prop Of Manglam Export, Vs Floor, Anavil Business Centre, 302, Pipla Sheri, Adajan-Hajira Road, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003 Pan : Abxpj 0344 G Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…m 325 (SC)  PCIT Vs Tejua R. Kapadia [TA No.691/2017 (Guj)  DCIT vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel TA No.462/1999 (Guj)  PCIT vs. Chartered Speed Private Ltd. TA No.126/2015 & 127/2015 (Guj)  ACIT vs. Vardhman Exports TA No.265/2008 (Guj)  CIT vs. M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj)  ACIT vs. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. TA No.997/2008 (Guj)  CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj)  PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. 422 ITR 520 (Bom)  PCIT vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. & Ors. 104 CCH 391 (Bom)  H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT 289 ITR 561 (Bom)  CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (B…

M/S. Sarswati Extrusion Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad

ITA 1716/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…ag)(Bom.HC) to state that purchases cannot be disallowed when sales are not doubted and where the suppliers had not appeared before the assessing officer or before the CIT (Appeals). He also relied upon the decision given in the case of CIT Vs. MK Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) to state that the amount represented by purchases cannot be disallowed merely because the seller has admitted before the Sales Tax Authorities that they have issued bogus vouchers as there was no evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to the assessee. The assessee then relied upon the decision given in the case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd Vs…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad vs. M/S. Saraswati Extrusions Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad

ITA 1546/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…ag)(Bom.HC) to state that purchases cannot be disallowed when sales are not doubted and where the suppliers had not appeared before the assessing officer or before the CIT (Appeals). He also relied upon the decision given in the case of CIT Vs. MK Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) to state that the amount represented by purchases cannot be disallowed merely because the seller has admitted before the Sales Tax Authorities that they have issued bogus vouchers as there was no evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to the assessee. The assessee then relied upon the decision given in the case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd Vs…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

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

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…unts to withdraw the monies from the bank accounts of the alleged suppliers, to find out the veracity of the assessee's claim. In this regard, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M.K. Bros reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj) wherein it has been held that 'nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee in any form. ...There are certain doubtful features, but the evidence is not adequate to conclude that the purchases made by the assessee from these parties were bogus.. ...when that is so, i…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

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

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…unts to withdraw the monies from the bank accounts of the alleged suppliers, to find out the veracity of the assessee's claim. In this regard, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M.K. Bros reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj) wherein it has been held that 'nothing is shown to indicate that any part of the fund given by the assessee to these parties came back to the assessee in any form. ...There are certain doubtful features, but the evidence is not adequate to conclude that the purchases made by the assessee from these parties were bogus.. ...when that is so, i…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…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 case 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…

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hina Arvind Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…s taken note of the fact that no sales could be effected without purchases. He 6 ITA.NO. 161/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2010-11) Smt Hina Arvind Shah 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 case 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Hans Raj Dhankar, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2217/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 133Section 139Section 143(3)Section 145Section 244ASection 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2217/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ACIT Vs Hans Raj Dhankar Circle 62(1) B-37, Ashok Vihar New Delhi New Delhi AAFPD0344P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv Date of Hearing 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 26/02/2016 passed by CIT(A)-20, Delhi for assessm…