CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619High Court2015#189 most cited

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

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

391

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt Ltd · 372 ITR 619 · bogus purchases · genuineness of transaction · accommodation entry · section 143(3) · section 133(6) · loose papers · section 145(3) · incriminating material · failure to produce parties

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.

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Sears Construction P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6975/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, M/S. Sears Construction Central Circle-1(2), बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Room No.906, Pratishtha 514, Dalamal Towers, Vs. Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Old 211, Nariman Point, Cgo Building Annexe, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs5289E

…Structural Steel (India) of Rs.49,20,751/- are genuine and thus, fully allowable. This ground raised by the appellant is also allowed.” 3.2. In the light of the above recording, we are reproducing hereunder a decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.):- “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 facts. The Tribunal records…

ITO 10(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and upheld the

ITA 4126/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd. 10(1)(3), Plot No.1-4, Loyalka Lane, बनाम/ Room No.25B, Ground Opp. Aziz Compound, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabc17006E

…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.” 2.6. 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…

Shri Jayesh Bhogilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133(6)

…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…

Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Private Limited., Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2)., Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…Larsco Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., 249/Hyd/2014 2. ITO Vs. Premanand, 25 SOT 11 ( ITAT, Jodh.) 3. Jagadamba Trading Co. Vs. ITO, 16 SOT 66 (Jodh.) 4. Multitex Filtration Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 13 SOT 208 (Del.) 5. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd., 372 ITR 619 6. Mohanlal R. Daga Vs. ITO, 147 Taxman 28 7. CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj) 8. Prakash Chand Natha Vs. CIT, 301 ITR 134 (MP) 9. CIT Vs. MK Brothers, 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 10. CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd., 361 ITR 206 (Guj.) 11. CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 12. Ramlila Pravin Shah,…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. A.J. Buildcon P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6204/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. Cit 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/S. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4Th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, Lbs Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M. V. Rajguru (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "On The Farts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Taw, The Ld. C1T(A) Erred Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Entire Disallowance Of Rs.67,99Hl3Q/-Mad Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Seller Pa Were Found To Be Hawala Operators/ Bogus Billers?, As Per Findings Given By (He Sales A.Y.2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6204/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dy. CIT 15(1)(1), बिधम/ M/s. A. J. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Room No. 470, 4th 514, Marathon Max, Opp, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nirmal Life Style, LBS Maharshi Karve Road, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAGCA6548Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri M. V. Rajguru (DR) Assessee by: Shri Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4408/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4407/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1st New CGO Building, Prathistha floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 PAN No. BBGPS2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri…

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

…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.” 3.6. 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 fact…

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

…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.” 3.6. 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 fact…

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

…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…

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

…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…

Prakash B. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1765/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…alathil [2014] 51 taxmann. Com 514 (Mumbai-Trib.) 8. Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013). Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12 9. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Mumbai vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bombay). 10. Babulal C. Borana vs. Income Tax Officer 282 ITR 251 (Bombay). 11. Ganesh Dass Piara Lal Jain vs. Income Tax Officer 49 ITR (Trib) 0036 (Chandigarh)”. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that since the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of transaction and furthe…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and 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 l…

Cassette World India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5203/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Cassette World India Income Tax Officer-5(1)(3) Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 343, Raajesh Building, Opp. M. K. Road, Vs. Lamington Road Police Mumbai-40020 Station, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aabcc5731L

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

…/s Ankita Sales was cancelled by the Sales Tax Department which was directed to be examined by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- 5 M/s. Cassette World India Pvt. Ltd. “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 state…

Har Gobind & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1108/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…urther, he has made the addition only for the reason that the supplier did not appear before him. He submitted that the said reasoning of AO would fail in view of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises P Ltd (372 ITR 619). He submitted that the assessee has filed confirmation letter, income tax statement of Shri Nilesh Parmar as additional evidences before Ld CIT(A), but the same has not been admitted by him. He further submitted that Shri Nilesh Parmar has retracted from his statement. 9. On the contrary, the Ld D.R strongly placed reliance on the order passed…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) — Cited in 391 Judgments | BharatTax