CIT v. M.K. Brothers

Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), C-60, 15Th Floor, Saibaba Bkc, Bandra, बनाम/ Enclave Tower, C-Wing, Bldg. Mumbai-400076 Vs. No.3, C.D Baug, S.V. Road, Neari City Centre Mall, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Admpr0197G

…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…

Ambernath Steel Tube and Sanitary Store, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ambernath Steel Tube Income Tax Officer & Sanitary Store, Ward-2(1), बनाम/ Partner-Shri Vimal Adhia, 02Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Station Road, Ambarnath (W), Wayle Nagar, Maharashtra-421501 Khandakpada, Kalyan (W) "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7639L

…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…

Mira Construction-Jv, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mira Construction-Jv, Acit-32(2), C/52, Ganjawala Apartment, Bandra, बनाम/ Svp Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400092 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aapfm7470B

…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…

Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Income Tax Officer-30(2)(3), 101, Hetal Arch. S.V. Road, Mumbai बनाम/ Opp. Natraj Market, Malad (W) Vs. Mumbai-400064 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aalfm2962N

…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…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Amoolya Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6294/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…13) 8. ACIT 11(2) Vs. Iqbal M. Chagala, Palloni Mansion ITA no. 877/Mum/2013, ITAT, Mumbai 9. Hon. Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251. 10. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs M.K. Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 11. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgement dated 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 7 I.T.A. No. 6294/Mum/2016 Amoolya Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713…

Asstt CIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Late Manojkumar S. Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-17(2), Late Shri Manojkumar S. Room No.134, Gupta Through L/H बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Madhavi Gupta, Vs. M.K. Road, C/O- M/S Krishna Steel Mumbai-400020 Corporation, 110, First Floor, Arihant, Ahmedabad Street, Masjid Station (E), Mumbai-400009 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpg1861G

…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.” 2.9. 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…

United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO 13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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…

ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. N.K. Ferromate(India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) R. No.567, P. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 32/40, Krishna Baug, Vs. M.K. Road, Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, Mumbai-400020 V.P. Road, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), P. Ltd. R. No.567, बनाम/ 32/40, Krishna Baug, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, M.K. Road, V.P. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Ltd.

…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…

ITO 32(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshan Gautam Salot, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-32(1)(4), Shri Darshan Gautam Salot, R. No.202, C-11, 2Nd Floor, A-3.4, Soni Tower, बनाम/ Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Ram Nagar, Borivali (East), Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400092 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Bmops4552G

…to account all the facts 14 Darshan Gautam Salot 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…

Hemant R. Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result the assessee appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi Vs. Asst. Cit 16(2) R.No.210, 2Nd Floor D-502, Kukreja Palace Vallabh Baug Lane Matru Mandir, Extension-Ghatkopar (E) Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 075 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Cit 19(1) Vs. Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 411, Arihant Building, 4Th Floor, Ahmedabad Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aagps4816C Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi Vs. Asst. CIT 16(2) R.No.210, 2nd Floor D-502, Kukreja Palace Vallabh Baug Lane Matru Mandir, Extension-Ghatkopar (E) Tardeo Road Mumbai – 400 075 Mumbai – 400 007 PAN/GIR No.AAGPS4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. CIT 19(1) Vs. Shri Hemant R. Sanghavi 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir 411, Arihant Building, 4th Floor, Ahmedabad Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 009 PAN/GIR No. AAGPS4816C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh A Thar Revenue by Ms.…

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B/2, Parekh Mahal, 80, Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacs5390N

…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…

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

…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…

DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Paxchem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bled.C.I.T Circle 7(3)(1) V. M/S. Paxchem Ltd., Room No. 669A, Plot No. A-34, T.T.C. Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Pawane, Mumbai – 400 710 M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaccp 0919 J

…y sort has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer insofar as the documentation filed by the appellant is concerned. In the context of these observations, certain other decisions would be noteworthy. 9 M/s. Paxchem Ltd In the case of CIT v. M. K. Brothers (163 ITR 249), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had approved the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal when it had held that additions made on the basis of statements made before the Sales Tax authorities alone cannot be evidence that bogus bills had been issued to the assessee, the payments having been made by way of account payee cheques. In its decision in the ca…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…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.” 3.6 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) held/observed as under:- 46 Shri Mithalal D Mutha “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…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Faco Fastners P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aabcf2490D Appellant) .. Respondent)

…Chagala, Palloni Mansion' ITA no. 877/Mum/2013, ITAT, Mumbai 3 M/s. Faco Fastners Pvt. Ltd., 9. Hon. Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251. 10. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs MX Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 11. Hon. Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment date 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15.…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

…as the same has been done on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department through the Directorate General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai. The Ld. counsel relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) (Guj) and decisions of Mumbai Tribunal in Balaji Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO (49 ITD 177) (Mum), DCIT vs. Rajeev G Kalathil (ITA NO. 6727/Mum/2012), Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014) submitted that since the action of AO is bad in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the action of the AO and deleted the addition. 8.…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…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.” ITA Nos.4373 to 4376//Mum/2016 10 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…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Pushpak Auxichem P.Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, 804, Iris, 8Th Floor, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Regency Estate, Bldg. No.7, Kalyan (West), Dayaneshwar Ngar, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301 Shill Road, Dombivali (East), Thane (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…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…