CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619High Court2015#182 most cited

What is CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The non-appearance or non-confirmation by a third party in response to an Assessing Officer's notice is not, by itself, sufficient to hold a transaction as non-genuine if the assessee has discharged its initial onus of proving genuineness. The failure of a third party to appear before the Assessing Officer to confirm a transaction cannot, by itself, lead to an adverse inference against the assessee.

391

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. · 372 ITR 619 · genuineness of transaction · onus of proof · third party non-appearance · failure to confirm transaction · Section 133(6) · Section 69C · assessment · unexplained expenditure · accommodation entry · Assessing Officer notice

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 69CSection 153CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 69csection 133(6)genuineness of the transactionloose paperssection 145(3)accommodation entrysection 133incriminating materialsection 131section 132(4)section 153csection 153

Judgments citing CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C

…national P Ltd. (P- 116 – 123) (122) [Vol.- III] K) Assessee sold goods in course of trading activity. Sales of goods are not disputed. Purchases by assessee paid through account payee cheques. Purchases stands satisfactorily explained. Reliance on: i) (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd. (P- 161 – 164) [Vol.- III] ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in SLA(Civil)…./2013 CC 14828/2013 in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd vide order dt 30/08/2013. (P- 160) [Vol.- III] L) Addition made by A.O. is u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. P. K. Noorjahan report…

VISHNULAXMI SILK MILLS,ANDHERI EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6) MUMBAI, LALBAUG

In the result, this ground of appeal is also allowed

ITA 4877/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physicalhearing) Vishnulaxmi Silk Mills, Income Tax Officer Building No.-6 29A, Mittal Industrial Vs Ward 23(3)(6), Piramal Chamber, Estate, Andheri, Kurla Road, Lal-Baug, Mumbai- 400012. Andheri (East), J.B. Nagar S.O, Mumbai- 400059. [Pan: Aaafv3106C]

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…held that merely, the lenders not responded to the notice of AO, cannot be ground to make addition when the assessee proved the transaction as genuine. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises Private Limited 372 ITR 619, has held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO or before the CIT(A), one could not conclude that the transaction made by the assessee was not genuine. Thus, in view of the above factual and legal position, we do not find any justification in making the addition of 8 Vishnulaxmi Silk Mills unsecured loan as unexplaine…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

…n Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 from various alleged parties, their hon’ble lordship have upheld 100% addition unproved purchase expense with regard to two alleged suppliers. Likewise, in another case ‘Nickunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT’ [372 ITR 619 (Bom)] their hon’ble lordship upheld addition in reassessment proceedings by observing that, where in course of survey u/s 133A of the act it was found that assessee made certain bogus bills/expenses, since occasion to consider genuineness of those bogus bills was never a subject matter of scrutiny in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, initiation…

R SURESH & CO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6515/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Rashesh ShahFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…ely covered by various decisions and findings therein, sited as under: 1. PCIT vs. Mohommad Hazi Adam & Co. - 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.) 2. PCIT vs. Siyaram Metals Udyog Pvt. Ltd. - 156 taxmann.com 132 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) 4. ACIT vs. Vardhman Exports - Tax Appeal No. 265 of 2008 (Guj.) 9 R Suresh & Co. 5. CIT vs. M.K. Brothers - 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 6. CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics - Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010(Guj) 7. ACIT vs. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008(Guj) 8. M/s. Simoni Gems vs. DCIT - ITA 747/MUM/2018 (Mum. Trib.…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2445/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ficer to confirm a transaction cannot transaction Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CTT v. Fancy International: 166 Taxman 183 (Delhi) - CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta: 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay) - CIT vv Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Lad: 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) - Diagnostics v. CIT: 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Gudwala& Sons v. ACFT: 155 taxmann.com 532 (Delhi-Tob.) - M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No.2715/Del/2016 DCIT v. Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd: ITA No.5323/Del/2015 - Umbrella Project Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA. No.5955/Del/2014 - Phool Singh v. ACIT: ITA No.2901/Del/2014 - Cheil India (P.) L…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ficer to confirm a transaction cannot transaction Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CTT v. Fancy International: 166 Taxman 183 (Delhi) - CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta: 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay) - CIT vv Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Lad: 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) - Diagnostics v. CIT: 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Gudwala& Sons v. ACFT: 155 taxmann.com 532 (Delhi-Tob.) - M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No.2715/Del/2016 DCIT v. Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd: ITA No.5323/Del/2015 - Umbrella Project Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA. No.5955/Del/2014 - Phool Singh v. ACIT: ITA No.2901/Del/2014 - Cheil India (P.) L…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ficer to confirm a transaction cannot transaction Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CTT v. Fancy International: 166 Taxman 183 (Delhi) - CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta: 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay) - CIT vv Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Lad: 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) - Diagnostics v. CIT: 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Gudwala& Sons v. ACFT: 155 taxmann.com 532 (Delhi-Tob.) - M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No.2715/Del/2016 DCIT v. Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd: ITA No.5323/Del/2015 - Umbrella Project Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA. No.5955/Del/2014 - Phool Singh v. ACIT: ITA No.2901/Del/2014 - Cheil India (P.) L…

DCIT, CC-20, DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2442/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ficer to confirm a transaction cannot transaction Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CTT v. Fancy International: 166 Taxman 183 (Delhi) - CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta: 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay) - CIT vv Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Lad: 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) - Diagnostics v. CIT: 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Gudwala& Sons v. ACFT: 155 taxmann.com 532 (Delhi-Tob.) - M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No.2715/Del/2016 DCIT v. Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd: ITA No.5323/Del/2015 - Umbrella Project Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA. No.5955/Del/2014 - Phool Singh v. ACIT: ITA No.2901/Del/2014 - Cheil India (P.) L…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. LOTUS HERBALS P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 200/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ficer to confirm a transaction cannot transaction Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CTT v. Fancy International: 166 Taxman 183 (Delhi) - CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta: 86 taxmann.com 22 (Bombay) - CIT vv Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Lad: 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) - Diagnostics v. CIT: 334 ITR 111 (Cal) Gudwala& Sons v. ACFT: 155 taxmann.com 532 (Delhi-Tob.) - M/s. Kesha Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO: ITA No.2715/Del/2016 DCIT v. Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd: ITA No.5323/Del/2015 - Umbrella Project Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA. No.5955/Del/2014 - Phool Singh v. ACIT: ITA No.2901/Del/2014 - Cheil India (P.) L…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW LIBRA KOTHI, RAILWAY ROAD, SIRHIND vs. BHAGWAN DASS, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Respondent: \nShri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

…ITAT Chandigarh and other High Courts\nincluding Gaurav Singhi v. ITO (ITA 889/Chd/2024), Prime Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.\nDCIT (174 Taxmann.com 547), DCIT v. Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 992 &\n993/Chd/2024), and CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (372 ITR 619 Bom) — holding that\nwhen books are not rejected and sales accepted, no addition on account of GP is\ncalled for.\nRespectfully following these binding and persuasive precedents, we find no error in\nthe order of the Ld. CIT(A). In fact, even the nominal GP addition sustained is\nconservative and in favour of Revenue. Hence, this ground of appeal…

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…e been made from grey market and accordingly entire purchases cannot be disallowed. • 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bombay High Court) Pr. CIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. • 300 Taxman 288 (Guj) Pr. CIT vs. Sunil Mittal (HUF) • 356 ITR 451 (Guj) CIT vs. Simith Sheth • 372 ITR 619 (Bom) CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. • 429 ITR 332 (Bom) Pr. CIT vs. Jakharia Fabric Pvt. Ltd. • 194 ITD 579 (Bom) Dy CIT vs. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. • 193 ITD 710 (Bom) Kimaya Impex (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 2. In Civil Construction cases (i) In the case of civil contractors, contracts allotted by semi government agencies, whi…

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…e been made from grey market and accordingly entire purchases cannot be disallowed. • 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bombay High Court) Pr. CIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. • 300 Taxman 288 (Guj) Pr. CIT vs. Sunil Mittal (HUF) • 356 ITR 451 (Guj) CIT vs. Simith Sheth • 372 ITR 619 (Bom) CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. • 429 ITR 332 (Bom) Pr. CIT vs. Jakharia Fabric Pvt. Ltd. • 194 ITD 579 (Bom) Dy CIT vs. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. • 193 ITD 710 (Bom) Kimaya Impex (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 2. In Civil Construction cases (i) In the case of civil contractors, contracts allotted by semi government agencies, whi…

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 421/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…rities below which are referred in the Paper Book and the learned A.R. relied on the following decisions:– 5 Subhash Badriprasad Shahu ITA no.421/Nag./2024 i) Ashok Kumar Rungta v/s ITO, 301 taxman 580 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 619 (Bom.); iii) PCIT v/s Uni Packs (I) Pvt. Ltd., 108 taxmann.com 454 (Bom.); and iv) CIT v/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., 418 ITR 315 (SC). When a query was raised to the learned A.R. to explain the gross profit ratio of the business, the learned A.R. has highlighted on the Page–24 of the legal Paper Book explaining the gross profit ratio from the A.…

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KOHINOOR FOODS LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 587/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

For Appellant: S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUTANT MEMBER DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. 10TH FLOOR, PINNACLE ROOM NO. 323, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI – 2 BUSINESS TOWER, SURAJ KUND ROAD, FARIDABAD HARYANA-121001 (PAN: AAACS2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), 10TH FLOOR, PINNACLE NEW DELHI BUSINESS TOWER, SURAJ KUND ROAD, FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 (PAN: AAACS2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, M…

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 149/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

For Appellant: S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUTANT MEMBER DCIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. 10TH FLOOR, PINNACLE ROOM NO. 323, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI – 2 BUSINESS TOWER, SURAJ KUND ROAD, FARIDABAD HARYANA-121001 (PAN: AAACS2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND M/S KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 14(2), 10TH FLOOR, PINNACLE NEW DELHI BUSINESS TOWER, SURAJ KUND ROAD, FARIDABAD, HARYANA-121001 (PAN: AAACS2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, M…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DISHA DYNAMIC BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed

ITA 3805/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Acit, Circle – 4(2)(1), Mumbai Disha Dynamic Buildwell Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Vs 101, Janet Castle, Marve Road, Opp. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Joseph High School, Orlem Malad West, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400064. Mumbai – 400020.] [Pan: Aadcd9697E] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 68

…mount has been repaid before issuance of show cause notice by 7 Disha Dynamic Buildwell Private Limited assessing officer. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom)  Rushabh Enterprises vs ACIT (WP No. 167 of 2015 dated 15.04.2015)  PCIT vs Jalaram Enterprises Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 671 of 2017)  CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78)  Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT (264 ITR 254)  Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs CIT (49 ITR 723) (Bom)  CIT vs Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava (208 Taxman 35) (Guj)  CIT…

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Through Hybrid Mode Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth , Accountant Member Assessment Year 2018-19 Jayvadan ITO, Rughnathwala, Ward-1(2)(1) 6/7 Khatodara Ind Vs Surat Service Society, (Respondent) B/h. Sub Jail Katodara, Surat-395002 PAN: AAQPR4348L (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 17-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 09-08- 2024 passed by…

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. WINNER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 633/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153A

…In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451 (Guj)), Held that only the profit element in suspected bogus purchases should be added to income, with a GP addition of 12.5%. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) [372 ITR 619 (Bom)], stated that when sales are not questioned, disallowing the entire purchase amount is inappropriate, and taxing a reasonable GP margin is sufficient. Similarly, in the case of PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (250 Taxman 106 (Bom)), reiterated that only the profit element should be taxed in cases of suspected inflated pur…

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. WINNER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 632/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153A

…In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451 (Guj)), Held that only the profit element in suspected bogus purchases should be added to income, with a GP addition of 12.5%. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) [372 ITR 619 (Bom)], stated that when sales are not questioned, disallowing the entire purchase amount is inappropriate, and taxing a reasonable GP margin is sufficient. Similarly, in the case of PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (250 Taxman 106 (Bom)), reiterated that only the profit element should be taxed in cases of suspected inflated pur…

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. WINNER CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 631/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 153A

…In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451 (Guj)), Held that only the profit element in suspected bogus purchases should be added to income, with a GP addition of 12.5%. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) [372 ITR 619 (Bom)], stated that when sales are not questioned, disallowing the entire purchase amount is inappropriate, and taxing a reasonable GP margin is sufficient. Similarly, in the case of PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2017) (250 Taxman 106 (Bom)), reiterated that only the profit element should be taxed in cases of suspected inflated pur…

Showing 1–20 of 391 · Page 1 of 20

...