CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Nikhil R. Dharia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 4.8. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in 21 Nikhil R. Dharia…

Dhiraj Babulal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Mukesh P. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Mr.Piraram Chouhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)5, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Mr.Piraram Chouhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)5, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

M/S.Diamex Sourcing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 5(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2013-14

…e on file to endorse 16 M/s Diamex Sourcing Private Limited, the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

P S Auto Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 3.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Midland Animal Nutrition P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3203/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Midland Animal Nutrition Ito Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai- Pvt. Ltd. 6W, Merchant 400020. Vs. Chambers, 6Th Floor, No.41, New Marine Lines, Opp, Patkar Hall, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2964Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D Dharmesh Shah & Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Has Been Ordered To Be Upheld.

…bills, delivery challans and confirmation of the party from whom the alleged bogus purchases were made and thereby holding that the same were not bogus in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Mil. (372 ITR 619). 1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice without admitting and in the alternative, the CIT(A) erred m not restricting the penalty levied to the gross loss incurred as [he alleged bogus purchases were subsequently sold for a iota I consideration of Rs.7,48,500 and therefore at best the penalty could be levied…

Zee Bangles, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.494/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Zee Bangles बिधम/ Ito Ward 18(3)(5) 3Rd Floor Earnest House 148, L.K. Mkt, Zaveri Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai- Bazar, Mumbai-400002. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafz3532C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Impugned Assessment Order Is Patently Illegal Passed In Violation Of Provisions Of Section 143(2), Non-Compliance Of Mandate Given By Hon. Sc [259 Itr 10 Pg. & Non-Compliance Of Principle Of Natural Justice & Thus Liable To Be Quashed.

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.494/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Zee Bangles बिधम/ ITO Ward 18(3)(5) 3rd Floor Earnest House 148, L.K. MKT, Zaveri Vs. nariman Point Mumbai- Bazar, Mumbai-400002. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFZ3532C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punmiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 27.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ty and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 10.10. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ty and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 10.10. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ty and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 10.10. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar CIT-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar DCIT-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/s S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali CHS Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. PAN No. ADAPD8694G…

Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2010-11 Jayprakash N Lakhani, Jcit-2, Block No.1-975/1950, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Kailash Colony, Ot Section, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Vs. Ulhansnagar, Kalyan West, Maharashtra-421005 Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aakpl5145M

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

M/S.Rolex Products, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Rolex Products Ito-27(3)(2) C-12, 4Th Floor, Samarpan New Tower No.6, Room No. 418, Maneklal Estate, Lbs Marg, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aahfr2053H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manish V. Shah With Niyanta Mehta (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-25

…pplier had not appeared before the assessing officer, the purchases could not be rejected as bogus. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Nikung Exim Enterprises (372 ITR 619) (Bombay), Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT versus Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia Tax Appeal No. 691/2017(Gujarat High Court), Arun Shimpy Versus ITO (53 ITR(Tri) 151)(Mumbai Tribunal) and ACIT Versus Mahesh K Shah (184 TTJ 702) (Mumbai Tri). In alternative submission the learned AR of the assessee submits that once it is established that purch…