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 367,154 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

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

…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…

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

…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…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2603/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…f 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.” Mrs. Kiran Navin Doshi 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…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2602/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…f 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.” Mrs. Kiran Navin Doshi 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…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…O is without any basis. In addition to this we are also relying on the following decisions in support of our claim:- (A) Dy. CIT vs. Adinath Industries (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 262 :(2001) 252 ITR 476(Guj) (B) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228: (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). (C) Sagar Bose vs. ITO (1996) 56ITD 561 (Cal): (D)Milk Food (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT-(2000) 111 Taxman 323 (Del)(Mag): (E) Asstt. CIT vs. Rehmat Khan Chandan Khan and Party (1995) 52 TTJ (Jp) 203 (F) J.H. Metals vs. ITO (2001) 71 TTJ (Asr) (TM) 683 : (2001) 77 ITD 71 (Asr) (TM) (G) J.R. Solvent Industries vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd)(TM)…

Shri Dilip Kumar Jain S/O. Samrathmal Jain, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 530/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 529 & 530/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, S/O Shri Samrathmal Indore. Jain, Prop. M/S. Shree Kshemkari Steel, 559, Ushanagar Extn., Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjrj8096M

Section 143(3)Section 145

…rved that the assessee had discharged his duty. He was, thereafter, not expected to prove the source of his suppliers. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of this Court -: 12 :- Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Indore. in the case of CIT v. M.K Brothers, reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj), upheld the claim of the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal also found that the payments were made through Account Payee Cheques. The Tribunal, therefore, held and observed that - "We find that the assessee's case is covered by decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M.K Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj). In the assessment o…

Shri Dilip Kumar Jain S/O. Samrathmal Jain, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 529/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos. 529 & 530/Ind/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, S/O Shri Samrathmal Indore. Jain, Prop. M/S. Shree Kshemkari Steel, 559, Ushanagar Extn., Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Abjrj8096M

Section 143(3)Section 145

…rved that the assessee had discharged his duty. He was, thereafter, not expected to prove the source of his suppliers. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of this Court -: 12 :- Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Indore. in the case of CIT v. M.K Brothers, reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj), upheld the claim of the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal also found that the payments were made through Account Payee Cheques. The Tribunal, therefore, held and observed that - "We find that the assessee's case is covered by decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M.K Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj). In the assessment o…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…against the purchase is (Ahd) accepted. Then the addition CIT V/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises cannot be made:- (P.) Ltd. * [2013] 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bombay HC) 6 Addition cannot be made without ITO V / s Permanand [2008 25 SOT evidence: 11] CIT V /s M K Bros. [163 ITR 249] CIT V. Kashiram Textile Mills P Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 61 (GUJ) Saraswathi Oil Traders V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC)174 CTR 108 (SC) 7 AO relied on third party Kishan Chand Chella Ram v. CIT information without cross- [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) examination. Hence, can't be Marneedi Satyam V/s Masimukkula relied: Venkataswami [AIR 1949 Mad 689] ITO V…

Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2423/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…of the Act were returned unserved with the remark not known on both the occasions, therefore, the onus was lied on the assessee to provide proper address. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has placed reliance in the case of CIT v. M K Brothers [1986] 163 ITR 249 (SC) which is in favour of the assessee and where the addition on bogus purchases was sustained. However, the said decision is relevant to year before 1986 and not related to accommodation entries whereas in the case of there is sales tax matter and statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain hence, not applicable to the facts of present case. Further, t…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Arya Ship Breaking Corportion, Mumbai

ITA 3983/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi -ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh-CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…rchases and the consequential effect thereof. The FAA recorded the various theories propounded by the judicial forums and referred to the cases of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited(IT Appeal No.5604 of 2010 dtd.17.12.2012),Babulal C Borana,M K Brothers(163 ITR 249),Bholanath Poly Fab (355 ITR 290),Simit P Sheth(356 ITR 451) and Rajeev G Kalathil(51taxmann.com 514).She further held that the AO had accepted the sales made by the assessee,that purchase sale correlation had not been controverted by the AO,that no discrepancy in the stock was pointed out, that the payments made for the purchases were routed thr…

Shyamdhar S. Mishra, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4314/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 133(6)Section 147

…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.” Shyamdhar S. Mishra 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…

Shyamdhar S. Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4313/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 133(6)Section 147

…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.” Shyamdhar S. Mishra 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…

Sachin Laxman Jangid, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Thane

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sachin Laxman Jangid, Income Tax Officer, Porp. Sachin Construction, Ward-3(3), बनाम/ 1, Mandelia House, Wagle Ind. Estate, Vs. Ramesh Pradhan Road, Thane (W)-400604 Naupada, Thane-400602 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Adbpj0867C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri M.Subramanian Shri M.V. Rajguru-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 10/05/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2018 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 147

…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:- 13 Shri Sachin Laxman Jangid “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…

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6769/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalata
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…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…

Plaexe Con Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Plaexe Con Services Acit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, Wayale Nagar, बनाम/ Manogat, Gajanan Khadak Pada, Kalyan West, Vs. Cooperative Housing Thane-421301 Society, Midc Road Badlapur East, Thane-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecp9267D

…being based on the fact, no substantial question of law can be said to 13 M/s Plaexe Con Services Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Ashok K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Asok K. Shah, Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), C-25, Sai Baba Enclave, Mumbai, बनाम/ S.V.Road, Vs. Goregaon West, Mumbai-400062 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Akeps3501N

…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 13 Ashok K. Shah. 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…

Mr.Ajay C. Shah HUF, Prop. M/S.Glass and Hardware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7195/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Ajay C. Shah, Income Tax Officer, C/O- Ajay C. Shah, Huf, Ward-26(1)(1), बनाम/ 60A/11, Sion Mahavir P.K. Bhavan, C-11, Vs. Chs, Scheme Road No.25C, R.No.703, 7Th Floor, Sion (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400062 Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aahha5664F

…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:- 13 Ajay C. Shah “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 c…

Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Ld

ITA 1556/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Unilex Colours & Dcit-13(1)(1), Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 106-107, Advent Atria, Vs. Chincoli Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu5230F

Section 234B

…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:- 13 Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd. “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 an…

Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Income Tax Officer B-71, Bldg. No.4, 7Th Floor, Ward-32(1)(3), बनाम/ Rustom Regency, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Dahisar (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400068 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aajpj6892N

…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 13 Bhavna Sunil Joshi 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…

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 378/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)

…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. CITv. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mill's (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), HO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2- 2010], Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 2…