CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…ated 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 No.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/2011) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (ITA No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Rajiv G.Kalathil (ITA No.6727/Mum/2012/RGR 20. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2959/MUM/2014 dt.28.11.2014. 21.…

Mayur Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…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.” 3.4. 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 3(2), Thane vs. Rammangal S. Gupta, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3(2), Shri Rammangal S. Gupta, Room No. 4, B-Wing, 9, Kedar Bunglow, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Shivaji Nagar, Wagle Estate, Wagle Estate, Vs. Thane – 400604 Thane (W)- 400604 Pan: Aavpg3060H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…sold. The assessee has also placed on record the Bank statement to prove that the payments were made through banking channels. The Ld. counsel further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(A) rightly restricted the addition to 10 % of the total bogus purchases made by the assessee during the relevant financial year. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material placed before us. The only grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly restricted the addition to 10% of the amount…

ITO 10(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Moonlight Electrical Contractors and Engineers P.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. 7343/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Ito-10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Moonlight Electrical R. No. 213, 2Nd Floor, Contractors & Engineering Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 B/3, Sona Udyog, Parsi Panchayat Road, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm7048L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7344/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit-10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Moonlight Electrical R. No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Contractors & Engineering Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 B/3, Sona Udyog, Parsi Panchayat Road, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcm7048L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Subhash S. Shetty (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 27/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 29/09/2016 & 30/09/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-2011

…ation the facts of the case and the GP rate shown by the assessee in the relevant year. The Ld. CIT(A) has further pointed out that AO has not disputed the sales made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) has held 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. In view of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-2011 the Law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court 100% addition is bad in law. Under these circumstances only…

Indubhai Prushottamdas Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed and that of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Nk Pradhan, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Ito-32(1)(5) B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Opp. Diamond Cinema, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Assessee .. Revenue Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito-32(1)(5) Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Opp. Diamond Cinema, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Revenue .. Assessee

…IT(A) restricted the disallowance at 2.52% of the bogus purchases in both the years, relying on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom). He also observed that the only profit element of the total component is in dispute, which needs to be added to the assessee’s returned income. Accordingly, he restricted the addition at 2.52% of the bogus purchases as profit. Aggrieved, in both the cases, Revenue as well as assessee preferred appeal before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the r…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

…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.” 5.5. 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 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalam Infra Development Pvt. Ltd., 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. 6106/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Ito-12(3)(3), Vs. M/S Mangalam Infra Room No. 224, Development Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Ground Floor, M.K. Road, Shreeji Shopping Centre, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं /Co No. 206/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalam Infra Vs. The Ito-12(3)(3), Development Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 16, Ground Floor, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shreeji Shopping Centre, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

…1% of the total sales including the sale of goods purchased genuinely during the relevant year. In our considered view neither 100% of the amount bogus nor 11% of the entire sales purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. 9. In Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that merely because its suppliers had not appeared before the A.O. or the ld. CIT(A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sumit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addi…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

…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…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Exim Trade Links (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Asst. Cit Cir 6 (2)(2) Vs. M/S. Exim Trade Links R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan (India) P. Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate 31/33, Nishanpada, Dongri Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaace8448B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…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.…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Diagold Designs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5621/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), Vs. M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Walbhat Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Co No. 148/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Diagold Designs Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Cit 12(2)(1), R-1, Cama Industrial Estate, Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Walbhat Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400063 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd3716A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

…f the assessee. Hence, there is merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel. On the other hand the AO has not pointed out any cogent evidence to falsify the contention of the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) has held 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. In the Light of the facts of the present case and the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are based on t…

Fancy Wear, Kharghar vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1596/Mum/2016,िन आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन िनधा"रण वष" िन धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 धा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1597/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Fancy Wear Income Tax Officer 122, Megh Tower, 12Th Floor, Ward-24(3)(1), Now-31(1)(4) Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road Vs. Mumbai. Goregaon-E,Mumbai-400 063. Pan: Aacff 0727 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार / Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 21/01/2016 Of Cit(A)-42, Mumbai The Assessee Is In Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S). The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Readymade-Garments.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together.The Details Of Date Of Filing Of Return, Income Declared, Assessed Income, Dates Of Assessment Orders Etc. Can Tabulated As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Income Declared Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2010-11 14.10.2011 Rs.2,15,171/- 26/03/2014 Rs.5.51Croress 2011-12 29.09.2011 Rs.1,05,187/- 26/03/2014 Rs.4.81 Croress

…e facts of its own and the precedent was only what was answered after raising a question of law, that the cases relied upon by the assessee were different as far as facts are concerned. He made a reference to cases of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (372 ITR 619),Simit P Seth(356ITR 451), Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd.(355 ITR 290),Vijay Proteins Ltd.(58 taxmann.com.44), Sri Ganesh Rice Mills (294 ITR 316), TriStar Jewellery Exports Private Ltd (ITA/8292/Mum/ 2011,dated 31/7/2015). He further analysed the cases decided by the tribunal. With regard to the claim of the assessee regarding the right to cross-e…

Palamootil Verghese Mathew, Thane vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2902/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sh. Palamootil Verghese Mathew, Vs. The Dcit, Cir-3, 401, Wellington Ghodbunder Room No. 2, “B” Wing, Road, Hiranandani Estate, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane (W)- 400607 Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agopm9419M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. S.K. Ramani (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-2, Thane, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

…P&L account along with audit report and computation of income, the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition made by the A.O. The Ld. counsel relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 in Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom) submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid case. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the assessee case is covered by the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in ITA No 1704/M/2017, Chanderkant vs. ITO, in which the a…

Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1167/Mum/2017, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, -25(3) Smt. Pinaki Dineshkumar Panani Mumbai. 401, Mangal Villa, Tejpal Road, Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. Pan:Aijpp 0802 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15/09/2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 23/12/2016,Of Cit(A)-37,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed Her Return Of Income On 19/09/2008,Declaring Income Of Rs.37.27 Lakhs.Initially The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Act.Subsequently,The Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 16/11/2010,Determining Her Income At Rs.31.80 Lakhs. On Receipt Of Information From Sales Department The Ao Re-Opened The Assessment,Invoking The Provisions Of Section 148 Of The Act. He Finalised The Assessment U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 4/3/16 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.70.16 Lakhs.

…ayments to the supplier parties was also made through banking channel. In view of this factual matrix, the case of the assessee is fully covered by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom.), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC), Hital Chunilal Jain & Ors. (2016) 46 CCH 0020(Mum.) and DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2014) 41 CCH 552 (Mum.). The Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that merely because the suppliers could not be produced before the authorities but othe…

Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT 12(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2928/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Poonam Skyline Construction Jt. Cit, Range 12(1), 66/B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chambers, Mumbai बिाम/ Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfp 4019 R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rahul Sarda प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai सुनवाई की तारीख / : 01.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.2.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-28, Mumbai Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Appellant-Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Property Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.5,01,42,080/-. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny.

…e during the relevant financial year? We notice that the AO has made disallowance in question without rejecting the books of account of the assessee. AO has also not disputed the sales made by the assessee during the relevant period. 8. In Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that merely because its suppliers had not appeared before the A.O. or the ld. CIT(A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sumit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addi…

Shekasa Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aaacs7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 14/09/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

…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 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. T M Mohamedally, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-14(2)(2), M/S T M Mohamedally Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Hararwala Bldg. बनाम/ Earnest House, 112, Lohar Chawl, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aacft2448M

…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…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जे’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री राजेन्द्र, लेखा सदस्य, एवुं , राम लाल नेगी न्यायिक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आिकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/s Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABPR2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प…

Mansukhlal H. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5645/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5646/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mansukhlal H Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3), (Prop. Of M/S United Engineering), Pratayksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, B-702, Marble Arch, Mumbai 51St Tps Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalps3521B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

…books of account of the assessee. Further, the Ld. CIT (A) has relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Tiwari, 220 taxmann 141, judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarswati Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) and following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the Ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition to the extent of 13.85% holding that the profit element on the total component in dispute needs to be added to the income of the assessee. We…

Kshitj Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…law can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” ITA Nos.2272 & 2273/Mum/2017 10 Kishitij J. Interiors 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 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

…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.” C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 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…