CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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

…unal 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.” 2.5 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…

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

…unal 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.” 2.5 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…

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

…al 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.” 2.5. 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…

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)

…s 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-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Born) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Born)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA No.5246/ Mum/ 2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mhm/ 2011) Therefore, since the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case here is identical to the above mentioned judicial orders, Ground of Appeal No 2 is allowed. After having gone through the facts of the…

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

…nal 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.” 2.8. 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 view of the 11 Late S…

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…nal 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.” 2.5. 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 facts…

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…nal 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.” 2.5. 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 facts…

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…nal 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.” 2.5. 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 facts…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpac Filters & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

…sales tax, the assessee’s purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Hon’ble Bombai High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) and Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Jagdamba Trading Company Vs. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 Jodhpur, the assessee has contended before the authorities below that for every sale there has to be corresponding purchases. If sales bills are being accepted then the total purchases amount should be accepted. 10…

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.

…nal 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.” 2.5. 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…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…ring both parties, I am of the opinion that making the entire bogus purchases as addition u/s 69C is no longer sustainable in law 19 I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 considering the the Bombay High Court Judgment In the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujarat High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth{2013} (356 ITR 451) (Guj) wherein restricting the addition to GP rate of 12.50% is approved. Accordingly I order and direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to only 12.50% of the sum of Rs.1,930/-. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 5. In t…

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

…nal 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.” 2.5. 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…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Samdani Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit 5(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Samdani Steels R.No.519, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt.Ltd., M.K. Road, 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1St Floor Mumbai -400020 C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aakcs1663A Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Maruti Inox (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit 5(3) (Formerly Kniwn As Samdani Aayakar Bhavan Steel Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1St Floor C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aakcs1663A Appellant) .. Respondent)

…387ITR 561 (Bom.). 14. Moreover, only because notices u/s. 133(6) could not be served on the last known addresses cannot go against the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) and M/s. Samdani Steels Pvt. Ltd., & M/s. Maruti Inox(India) Pvt. Ltd., 15. Even, the Id, Assessing Officer and CIT(A) has failed to prove that the assessee has shown lesser profits by virtue of these alleged purchases to avoid tax consequences. In this regard, it may please be noted that the average Gross Profit for the last 5 years is 3.…

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)

…transport invoice, unloading invoice, bank statement) are attached in the Factual Paper Book ("FPB") filed on November 01, 2017. 7. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (372 ITR 619) [Refer Page No 77 to 78 of Legal Paper Book ("LPB") attached herewith as Annexure I] wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the findings of the tribunal that where the assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers and stock reconciliat…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7345/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dcit – 10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Minex Metallurgical Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Company Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 301, Rajguru Apartments, Mumbai - 400020 New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm7315B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7346/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit – 10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Minex Metallurgical Room No. 216A, 2Nd Floor, Company Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 301, Rajguru Apartments, Mumbai - 400020 New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm7315B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 17/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 23/09/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

…he parties PAN of the parties, Bills, Details of statements of bank accounts and cheque numbers, goods receipt note and inspection and testing report. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Ld. counsel submitted that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the evidence on record and in accordance with the settled principles of la…

Chhaganlal S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6138/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Chhaganlal S. Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Mehta Metal Corporation, Ward 19(1) (3), 2Nd Khetwadi Lane, Room No. 220, 1St Floor, Near Alankar Cinema Varsha, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400007 Shop No. 5, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aekpm5292E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Jenardhanan (Dr)

…statements etc. and further proved that the payments were made through banking channels, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly sustained the addition made by the AO. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Ld. counsel submitted that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 purchases were not made. Since, the AO has not rejected the sale, the addition cannot be made on the ground of bogus purchases. 8. On the other hand, the Ld.…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M.S. Infraproject P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5607/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Ito-12(3)(3), Vs. M/S M.S. Infraproject Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, G Wing, Flat No. 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Sumer Nagar – Mumbai - 400020 Building, S.V. Road, Behind Ajanta Party Hall, Borivali West, Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabc17701C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Anil Thakrar (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2017

…ross examine the makers of the statements. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court pronounced in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2003) 127 Taxman 523 and the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Ld. counsel submitted that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on the evidence on record and in accordance with the settled principles of la…

Irfan Habib Lakdawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…ddition in some cases to the extent of 2% of the value of purchases and in some cases it has fully deleted the disallowances. She further submitted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also deleted the entire disallowance in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises (372 ITR 619). Accordingly, learned AR contended that further relief should be granted to the assessee. 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee could not furnish proof to show receipt of materials and hence the learned CIT(A) has taken the view that the assessee might have obtained material from the grey market. Ev…

Muffazal Hakim Penwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3740/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Muffazal Hakim Penawala Cit(A)-28, India House, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, बनाम/ Shop No. 1-2, 246, A. R. Street, Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 1934 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

…er has not issued any notice to the concerned parties. She further placed reliance upon some case law from the ITAT and the 7 Shri Muffazal Hakim Penawala vs. CIT(A) Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (372 ITR 619). It was further submitted that for A.Y. 2009-10, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the profit element @ 4%, however for assessment year 2010-11, the same ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the profit element @ 6%. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel of the assessee pleaded that no addition should be made. 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitt…

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Topnotch Chemicals P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Dcit 15(3)(1), Vs. M/S Topnotch Chemicals Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No. C-116, Maharshi Karve Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No. 155/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Topnotch Chemicals Private Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-116, Aaykar Bhavan, Ttc Industrial Area, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Present Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Against Order Dated 18/08/2016 Passed By The 2 Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 & Co No. 155/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

…ubstantiate the genuineness of the transaction of purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) should have deleted the entire addition made by the AO. The Ld. counsel relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) submitted that since the AO has not rejected the sale shown by the assessee the purchases cannot be cannot be treated as bogus. Therefore, the CIT (A) has wrongly sustained the addition of 12.5%. The Ld. counsel further submitted that assessee has also filed cross objection. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the entire rec…