CIT v. M.K. Brothers

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…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…

Diamond Creations, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

…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 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Actube Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

…assessee placed reliance on following case laws to support its contentions: a) CIT v. Nikhunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited ITA No. 5604 of 2010(Bom.HC),dated 17.12.2012 b) Rajesh P. Sonivs v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892(Ahd.) c) CIT v. M.K. Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249(Guj.) 6 | P a g e I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 d) CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 40 taxmann.com 494(Guj.) 5.2 The assessee also submitted that these purchases are reflected in its books of accounts. It was also submitted by assessee before learned CIT(A) that the assessee has duly reflected these purchases in sales tax return fil…

Sachin Anantray Ghelani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ Ito 27(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpg2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. However, the assessee placed reliance upon the decision in case of CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court), Tax Appal No. 689 of 2010, dated 22.04.2013, 334 ITR 111 Calcutta Diagnostics Vs. CIT, 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Bros and ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib). The applicability of these decisions is required to be seen on the basis of the facts and circumstances of these cases which nowhere seem to be applicable in the instant case. The estimation profit upon bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% nowhere seems unjustifiable,…

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Radiant Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी संद"प गोसाई , "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri SANDEEP GOSAIN, Judicial Member AND Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member, Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT-25(3), M/s Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AAJFR3662E CO No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.4146/Mum/2017…

Shantilal B. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

…nels cannot be disallowed merely because the suppliers could not be presented before Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions ; i) Babulal C. Borana v. Third ITO (2006) 282ITR 251 (Bom) . ii) CIT v. M.K. Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) ii) HI Lux Automotive (P.) Ltd v. ITO (2007) 163 Taxman 90 (Delhi)(Mag) v) Jagdamba Trading Co. v. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 (Jodh) v) ITO v. Permanand (2008) 25 SOT 11 (Jodh) (URO) 1.4 Further the Assessing Officer relying upon information received from Sales-tax department and affidavit alleged to be submitted by these parties before sales tax…

Shantilal B Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

…nels cannot be disallowed merely because the suppliers could not be presented before Assessing Officer. Reliance is placed in this regard on the following decisions ; i) Babulal C. Borana v. Third ITO (2006) 282ITR 251 (Bom) . ii) CIT v. M.K. Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) ii) HI Lux Automotive (P.) Ltd v. ITO (2007) 163 Taxman 90 (Delhi)(Mag) v) Jagdamba Trading Co. v. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 (Jodh) v) ITO v. Permanand (2008) 25 SOT 11 (Jodh) (URO) 1.4 Further the Assessing Officer relying upon information received from Sales-tax department and affidavit alleged to be submitted by these parties before sales tax…

ITO-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fanatic Fashion Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma: A.Y : 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 ITO-6(3)(1) vs. M/s. Fanatic Fashion Pvt.Ltd. 5th Floor, Room No.510 122, Jogani Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan S B Marg, Dadar (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai – 400 028 PAN No. AAACF9297F Revenue by : Shri Anoop Hiwase Assessee by : Shri Vizti Kothari Date of Hearing : 27/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2020 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of t…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

…stances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 2.5 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 transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

…tances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 3.7. 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…

Dinesh S. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2012-13

…stances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 2.5 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 transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…tances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 3.4. 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…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…tances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 3.4. 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…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…tances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 3.4. 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…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…tances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 7.5. 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 Dinesh S. Jain question were normal business transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not c…

Ralf Jems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…stances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 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 transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Shri Jayantilal K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayantilal K Jain, Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), 35, Krishna Kunj, Kika Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Street, Gulalwadi, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aajpj8095K

…stances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 2.5 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 transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…

Shri Ramesh C.Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…stances, the decision of the Tribunal being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 2.5 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 transactions and the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they did not come, the assesse…