CIT v. M.K. Brothers

Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd Ito-6(3)(2), Ion House, 4Th Floor, Dr. E. Room No.503, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Moses Road, Mahalakshmi, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400011 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabci4403P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri R.R.V.Raghavan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr

…a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6 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…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.6. 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 assessee…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Dhanraj Murpana, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(1), Shri Anil Dhanraj Murpana, 02Nd Floor, Earnest House, 308, Adhyaru Industrial बनाम/ Nariman Point, Estate, New Sun Mill Vs. Mumbai-400021 Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapm7660G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. 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 14 Anil Dhanraj Murpana the assessee had made payments by cheques. The parties did not come forward and if they d…

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Arvindbhai Khatri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-25(1), M/S Ajay Arvindbhai Khatri, Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, 30/31, Borivali Shopping बनाम/ Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Centre, Chandavarkar Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaefa7242G Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Dinkel Hariya

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.7. 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…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

…of account and supported by authenticated purchases bills/ vouches payments were made through banking channel, the sales against these purchases not doubted. No addition can be made merely because he suppliers cannot be located, e, CIT V/s M K Brothers (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) In relevant assessment year assessee made certain purchases from some parties and made payment through cheques-JTO found that parties were not available to cross-examine and that through purchases reclaimed to have been made on credit basis, payments were shown to have been made after substantial lapse of time after date of purchase -ITO he…

Hitesh H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4756, 4757& 4758/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11& 2011-12)

…t conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Several decisions cited in support of the said argument are NikunjEximp 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…

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…uineness. It was further submitted that the purchases in the hands of the assessee could not at all be doubted, in view of the decision of the 6 I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017 Jet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. M. K. Brothers (163 ITR 249), whereinthe Hon’ble Gujrat High Court stated that the purchases could not be disallowed if the payments were made through cheques even when the sellers were held to be bogus by the Sales Tax Authorities. Ld. AR further submitted that merely because of parties from whom the material was purchased was not available, did not warrant additions. In t…

Poly Impex, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer 18 (3) (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Poly Impex, The Income Tax Officer, 102/A, Shri Krupa Chs. Ltd., बनाम/ Ward-18(3)(3), Station Road, Bhayander (East), Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Thane – 401 105 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaifp 0795 R

…a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 4.5. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- 13 M/s. Poly Impex “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 no…

Neha Steels, Thane vs. ITO Ward, 1(3), Kalyan

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Neha Steels, Ward-1(3), Kalyan. H.No. 24, Ganesh Society, बनाम/ Behind Mseb, Kalyan Road, Vs. Bhiwandi, Dist. – Thane. (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaffn 9968 D Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Neha Steels, Income Tax Officer, H.No. 24, Ganesh Society, बनाम/ Ward-1(3), Kalyan. Behind Mseb, Kalyan Road, Vs. Bhiwandi, Dist. – Thane. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaffn 9968 D

…a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 5.5. 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…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Neha Steels, Thane

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramt Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Neha Steels, Ward-1(3), Kalyan. H.No. 24, Ganesh Society, बनाम/ Behind Mseb, Kalyan Road, Vs. Bhiwandi, Dist. – Thane. (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaffn 9968 D Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Neha Steels, Income Tax Officer, H.No. 24, Ganesh Society, बनाम/ Ward-1(3), Kalyan. Behind Mseb, Kalyan Road, Vs. Bhiwandi, Dist. – Thane. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaffn 9968 D

…a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 5.5. 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…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…-10& 2010-11 attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings. 2.5.10 The Ld. AR has relied on a number of decisions including those in the cases of Nikunj Exirn 216 Taxmann 171 (Born); M..K.Brothers 30 Taxmann 547 (Guj) and Rajeev C. Kalathil (ITA No, 6727/Mum12012 dated 20-08-2014) to suggest that no addition could be made on account of disallowance of purchases. 2,5.11 Having gone through the above case laws, it is seen that in none of those cases so much of investigation was done including those by another Government authority, viz., Maharashtra Sal…

DCIT Cir.7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

…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.” 3.7. 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 17 PJL Clothing India Ltd. 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 th…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Mp Recycling Co P Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6385/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit-Cc-1(4) M/S. M.P. Recycling Co. Pvt. Ltd., Room No.902, Pratishta Bhavan, 9Th Floor, 51-53, A-Wing, Mittal Court, J.B. Marg, Vs. Old Cgo Bldg. Annexe, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aadcm 3153 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07/ 02/2018 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 09/08/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 47,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Ship Breaking & Is A Trader In Steel Items.It Also Produces Of Steel Pellets.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/ 09/ 2009.Pursuant To Search Proceedings,The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20/ 06/ 2012,Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,86,03,702/-.The Completed Assessment,On 27/03/2014, Determining Its Income At Rs.5,95,67,159 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Act.

…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…

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. Acit, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacv2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 3.6. 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…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bds Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. 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…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bds Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. 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.Prints, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. M.S. Prints, Dcit-27(2), 105, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, Income Tax Office, T बनाम/ L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Ower No.6, Vashi Rly. Vs. Mumbai-400086 Station, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalfm4121D

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6. 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…

Mohammed Salim F. Chohan, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2011-12 Mohammed Salim F. Acit-15(3), Shohan, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ 17/18, 4Th Floor, 28-Ali 1St Floor, Vs. Umer Street, Grant Road, Mumbai-400003 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aampc8124D

…reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs. 1.33 crores was not bogus. No fault can be found with the order dated April 30, 2010, of the Tribunal.” 2.6 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…