How many judgments cite CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.?

391 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 133(6), Section 153A, Section 69C.

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 367,154 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 147 Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 153A Section 69C Section 153C Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 69c section 133(6)genuineness of the transaction loose papers section 145(3)accommodation entry section 133 incriminating material section 131 section 132(4)section 153c section 153

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

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5096/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

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

Section 69C

…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:- 10 M/s Sovika Chemicals 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 statement…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5019/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 69C

…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…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infrapojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4231/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…be sustained. He further submitted that the assessing officer has made the disallowances without rejecting books of accounts. The ld A.R placed reliance on the following case laws to support his various contentions:- (a) CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterpries (2015)(372 ITR 619)(Bom) (b) ITO Vs. Karsan Nandu (2017)(77 Taxmann.com 275)(Mum-Trib) (c) Fancy Wear Vs. ITO (ITA No.1596 & 1597/M/2016 dt. 20-09-17) The Ld A.R further submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the above said case, the revenue unearthed blank bill books,…

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

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 921/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri N.JayendranFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 147

…of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (19 CTR 360) had held that unless the assessee is confronted and an opportunity of cross- examination given, nothing can be read in evidence against the assessee. In the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (372 ITR 619), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had observed that merely because the supplier had not appeared before the AO, it cannot be concluded that purchases had not been made by the assessee. Such disallowance made merely on the basis of assumptions - which were made because of non- production of sellers - was held to be untenable. In the case under consid…

Simplex Thermal Solution, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6907/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6907/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Simplex Thermal Solutions, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 206, Hallmark Commercial - Income Tax, Complex, Lbs Marg, Circle – 29(3), Mulund (West), Mumbai - Mumbai - 400080 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjfs0212J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Navin Mishra (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Navin Mishra (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…n the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department; the addition in question is bad in law. The Ld. Counsel relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 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 by the respondent/assessee. Hence, The findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid case. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representativ…

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

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

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘डी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri. Mithalal D Mutha, Income Tax Officer, 8, Shop No.1, R.K.Building बनाम/ Ward 16(3)(1), Matru No.4, Khetwadi Lane, Mandir Building, Vs. MUMBAI – 400 004. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) PAN. No. AASPM9256A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ishwar P Rathi याजस्व की ओर से / Re…

ITO 32(1)5, Mumbai vs. Indubhai Purshotam Das Vora (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3179/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…the addition at Rs.3,52,968/- on the ground that the assessee itself declared GP of 2.61% during the year. While coming to this conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) followed the decision in the cases of (i) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111), (ii) M/s Nikunj Enterprises (372 ITR 619(Bom) and (iii) Sarawathi Oil Traders V/s CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC). 6. The ld. DR contended before us that the ld.CIT(A) did not consider facts on record that the purchases were bogus and made from the parties whose names were listed in the website of Sales Tax Department of 5 I . T . A . N o . 3 1 7 8 a n d 3 1 7 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 Government of Mah…

ITO 32(1)5, Mumbai vs. Indubhai Purshotam Das Vora (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

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

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

ITA 1641/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ate 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Bom)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA I fo.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pi. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/20ll) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (I A No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Rajiv G.Kalathil (ITA No.6,27/Mum/2012/RGR 20. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21.…

Yasika Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 844/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yasika Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Juliet Ravichandran, Shop No. 2A, Mahavir Darshan, Ito – 5(3)(4), Khetwadi, Khambata Lane, Mumbai Mumbai – 400004 Vs. Pan: Aaacy2914J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nt of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619, while upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal, has observed 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 by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribuna…

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh K. Desai, Mumbai

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

ITA 7357/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7357/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mukesh K. Desai, Income Tax-25(3), 9, 2Nd Floor, Madhukunj, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, V.S. Khandekar Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpd778D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…unt. Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 7 Assessment Year: 2011-12 10. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), while upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal, has observed 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 by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth (supra) upheld the decision of the Tribunal a…

ITO WD 2(2), Kalyan vs. K Manyar, Ulhasnagar

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

ITA 6229/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6229/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S K. Manyar, Ward 2(2), Prop. Madhu H. Maniyar (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Bk No. 831, Room No. 1, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Sec. 17, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Ulhasnagar - 421503 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahhm3368J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Virag M Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Virag M Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17

…nt of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), while upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal, has observed 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 by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the T…

ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Detection Instrument India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 6195/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6195/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Acit- 15(1)-2, Vs. M/S Detection Instruments Room No. 483-A, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, El/36, Electronics Zone, Mumbai - 400020 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai - 400710 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1659F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Rakesh Joshi (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nt of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), while upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal, has observed 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 by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the T…

Shri. Hariram S. Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 15(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 2091/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2091/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hariram S. Bishnoi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 107/111, 1St Floor, Ward 15(2) (4), 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpb8257B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

…Income Tax has erred in ignoring the contents of the following decisions: 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 a. DCIT 25(3) vs. Rajeev G. Kalathil I.T.A. No. 6727/Mum/2012 order dated 20.08.2014. b. Hiralal Chunilal Jain ITAT c. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619). Your petitioner submits that the total purchase effected by him from so called bogus dealers is Rs. 78,80,961/- and not Rs. 94,30,485/- which includes opening balances of some of the suppliers. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax has further erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee had earned Gross Profit of 12.16% from sale of Rs.…

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

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

ITA 5840/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 147

…ging the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act. . Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Hon’ble Bombay 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 submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, if sales bills are accepted then the total purchases amount should be accepted as for every sale there has to be corresponding…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Re Infra P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 4586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Re Infra. Private Limited, – Tax – 14 (3) (1), Office No. 3, Gangatara, Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 73 Pestom Sagar Road No. 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400089 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7593R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 4373/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 69C

…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…

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Jayesh Velji Karia, Dombivali

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 3135/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Rakhmabai Jadhav Niwas, Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., Dhorte Compound, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E), 421201 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Jainam Traders), Ward-3(5), C-38, Munshi Estate, Kalyan 1St Floor, M.G. Road, Vs. Above Mahavir Jain Dudhalay, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., New Bharat Chs, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Karia Traders), Ward-3(5), 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan New Bharat Chs, Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…the assessee during the relevant financial year. Hence, the action of AO in making addition of entire amount to the income is not in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) Since, the action of AO is not justifiable, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly modified the assessment order by restricting the addition. While upholding the decision of Mumbai Tribunal the Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held tha…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

…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., 10 M/s. Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ltd. reconciliation statem…

Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1 बनाम/ House No. 1, Green Park, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. A-Wing, 1St Floor, Wayale Nagar Khandakpada, Bhiwandi-421302 Kalyan (W), Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aajcs1619M