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.

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 619)

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7717/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…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.” 3.5. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- ITA No.1508, 6935 & 7717/Mum/2012 11 Kaysons Agencies Private Limited “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 stat…

Kaysons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Cir.4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6935/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…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.” 3.5. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- ITA No.1508, 6935 & 7717/Mum/2012 11 Kaysons Agencies Private Limited “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 stat…

Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1508/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…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.” 3.5. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- ITA No.1508, 6935 & 7717/Mum/2012 11 Kaysons Agencies Private Limited “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 stat…

Anand Baburao Bhosale, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-

ITA 7134/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Shri Anand Baburao Bhosale, The Ito 18(1)(4), Prop. Of M/S Unique Enterprises, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 315/4, Deen Building Compound, Mumbai - 400013 N.N. Joshi Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Acipb1064H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Baburao BhosaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…to conclusively hold that the assessee had not made any purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) should have taken into consideration the surrounding circumstances while adjudicating the said issue. 10 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. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total…

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alka N Madhani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 2397/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…h Prasad Tewari 220 Taxmann 0141 (2014), it has been held that if the payments have been made by cheques and are reflected in the books of account of the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. 4.6 It has been held in the case of M/s. Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been…

Geolife Organics, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of all the assessees are allowed in part

ITA 3699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Geolife Organics Vs. Acit – 23(2), Mumbai- 301, Marathon Max, 400051 L.B.S.Marg, Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund(W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aahfg7722N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5), Mumbai- Shop No.756/54, Nanubhai 400 007 Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Acypc2583N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Jabarsingh B Daiya, Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai – R.No.16, 1St Floor, Mulji 400 007 Madhavji Building, 160, C.P.Tank Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Ahypd4454E Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Rajendra Nemichandji Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai – Chandan, 38, Ground Floor, 400 007 Alankar Building, 245/247, Khetwadi Lane, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aeypc6575L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Geolife Organics, Mumbai & Others

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…by account payee cheque, quantitative tally of purchases and sales so as to substantiate the fact that all the goods so purchased were sold by the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 372 ITR 619 and Goolamally Hasanjee (ITA/3740-41/Mum/2012 – A.Y.06-07 and 08-09 dt. 10.06.2014). He also referred to the case of Ashok Talreja – HUF (ITA / 4629/Mum/2014 & Ors. A.Y.s07-08 to 09-10 dated 17/03/2016) and stated that facts of that case were similar to the case under consideration. 7. As per learned AR in the case of Jeetendra Harshadkumar Text…

Thanmal H. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6131/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Thanmal H Jain, Ito-19(3)(5), R.No.201, 2 Nd Floor, Prop. M/S. Bhavana Sales Vs. Corporation, 147-A, Sant Sena Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Maharaj Marg, 2Nd Mumbai – 400 007. Kumbharwada, Mumbai-004. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Acdpj2247B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…total purchases is confirmed.....” 6. Considering the above, I am of the opinion, the while taking the decision the Revenue Authorities correctly relied on the binding precedents ie the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujrath High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth [2013] (356 ITR 451) (Guj.). Therefore, in my considered opinion, the decision of the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, relevant ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is di…

Chhaganlal Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(3) (Currently ITO WD. 22(1)(3)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6104/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Shri Chhaganlal Solanki, Ito-19(1)(3), 99/3, Dr. Mahimtura Marg, Mumbai. Vs. 3Rd Kumbharwada, Mumbai-004. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Anlps8277P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Gautam SalechaFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

…essee submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 19,56,011/- being 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases of Rs. 1.56 Crs. On appeal, CIT (A) confirmed the same relying on the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujrath High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth [2013] (356 ITR 451) (Guj.). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before the Tribunal, I find, para 8.11 of the impugned ord…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6055/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ V & V Pharma Industries, Acit, Circle-3, 73, “Sanskruti Prasad”, Thane. Vs. Ram Maruti Road, Thane (W), 400 602. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfv 7814 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER फनाभ/ V & V Pharma Industries, ACIT, Circle-3, 73, “Sanskruti Prasad”, Thane. Vs. Ram Maruti Road, Thane (W), 400 602. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AADFV 7814 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Deepak Raje प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 11.04.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 10.10.2016 is agai…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Ruchi Menthol P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3744/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Ito, Ward-1(3), M/S. Ruchi Menthol Pvt Ltd., Kalyan, 1St Floor, 104, Malhar Palace No.1, Vs. Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Manpada Road, Opp. Kasturi Khadakpada, Kalyan. Plaza, Dombivali East-401202. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccr9361G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ketan L. Vajani

…n, the decision given by the CIT (A) vide the contents of para 7.9 of his order is required to be upheld without any changes. The said decision of the CIT (A) is in tune with the binding Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujrath High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth [2013] (356 ITR 451) (Guj.). Accordingly, I am of the opinion, the CIT (A)‟s decision is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order prono…

Max Fled & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3584/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(3)Section 148

…identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal of Mumbai benches deleted the addition made under Section 69C in the following cases: Sl. Decision Citation / ITA Nos. 1. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 2. ITO Vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 3. ITV Vs. Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 4. ACIT Vs Vishal P Mehta 5313/M/2013 5. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HUF) 4629/M/2014 and others 6. Talco Marketing Vs. ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 7. DCIT Vs.Rajeev G Kalathil 6727/M/2012 8. ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 9. ITO Vs. San…

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3583/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(3)Section 148

…identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal of Mumbai benches deleted the addition made under Section 69C in the following cases: Sl. Decision Citation / ITA Nos. 1. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 2. ITO Vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 3. ITV Vs. Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 4. ACIT Vs Vishal P Mehta 5313/M/2013 5. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HUF) 4629/M/2014 and others 6. Talco Marketing Vs. ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 7. DCIT Vs.Rajeev G Kalathil 6727/M/2012 8. ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 9. ITO Vs. San…

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3582/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(3)Section 148

…identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal of Mumbai benches deleted the addition made under Section 69C in the following cases: Sl. Decision Citation / ITA Nos. 1. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 2. ITO Vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 3. ITV Vs. Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 4. ACIT Vs Vishal P Mehta 5313/M/2013 5. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HUF) 4629/M/2014 and others 6. Talco Marketing Vs. ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 7. DCIT Vs.Rajeev G Kalathil 6727/M/2012 8. ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 9. ITO Vs. San…

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3581/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(3)Section 148

…identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal of Mumbai benches deleted the addition made under Section 69C in the following cases: Sl. Decision Citation / ITA Nos. 1. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 2. ITO Vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 3. ITV Vs. Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 4. ACIT Vs Vishal P Mehta 5313/M/2013 5. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HUF) 4629/M/2014 and others 6. Talco Marketing Vs. ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 7. DCIT Vs.Rajeev G Kalathil 6727/M/2012 8. ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 9. ITO Vs. San…

Bombay Sealink Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3596/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist

Section 143(3)Section 148

…identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal of Mumbai benches deleted the addition made under Section 69C in the following cases: Sl. Decision Citation / ITA Nos. 1. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 2. ITO Vs. Takhtmal Bhuralal Pichholiya 4526 to 4528/M/2014 3. ITV Vs. Hiren Shantilal Doshi 715/M/2015 4. ACIT Vs Vishal P Mehta 5313/M/2013 5. ITO Vs. Ashok Talreja (HUF) 4629/M/2014 and others 6. Talco Marketing Vs. ITO 3394 and 3395/M/2014 7. DCIT Vs.Rajeev G Kalathil 6727/M/2012 8. ITO Vs Paresh Arvind Gandhi 5706/M/2013 9. ITO Vs. San…

Stulz Chspl (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1514/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR

…as the cited precedents and the relevant material placed before us, we approve the above argument of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to recomputed the addition relying on the Bombay High Court Judgment in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujrath High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth [2013] (356 ITR 451) (Guj.). 5. Further, Ld AR submitted further reduction from the said 12.5% to the extent of the VAT paid by the assessee second time. In our opinion, the assessee should not be put to loss on this account. AO is directed to do the needful. In this rega…

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3321/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ram Lal Negiफनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/S. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abeps7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya

Section 133ASection 69CSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER फनाभ/ Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), M/s. Shree Krishna Chaitanya R.No.204, C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Enterprises, Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, 102, A-Wing, Radha Vilas, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Kandarpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 68. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : ABEPS7379H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri S.K. Saikia, CIT-DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar सुनवाई की तायीख /…

Jayesh A Shah, Thane vs. ITO WD 4(2), Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6288/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6288/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) I.T.A. No.6289/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) I.T.A. No.6290/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Shri Jayesh A Shah, ITO Ward-4(2), D/201, Sundervan, Thane. Vs. Vasant Karishma Complex, Ambadi Road, Vashi (W), Thane – 401202. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AFCPS7516N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hea…

ITO 32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpaben R.Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4464/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 147

…eved against the disallowance of bogus purchase of applying profit rate, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the submissions and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) deleted the disallowance by observing in Para 6 as under:- “6. Decision 1. I have gone through the contentions of the appellant, findings of the AO and various submissions made. The main contention of the AO is that the names of these 19 sellers appear in the list of the suspicious dealers in the list published by Sales Tax Department, M…

ITO 32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpaben R.Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 4463/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 147

…eved against the disallowance of bogus purchase of applying profit rate, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who after considering the submissions and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) deleted the disallowance by observing in Para 6 as under:- “6. Decision 1. I have gone through the contentions of the appellant, findings of the AO and various submissions made. The main contention of the AO is that the names of these 19 sellers appear in the list of the suspicious dealers in the list published by Sales Tax Department, M…

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai

Kaysons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Cir.4(2), Mumbai

Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

Anand Baburao Bhosale, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alka N Madhani, Mumbai

Geolife Organics, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(2), Mumbai

Thanmal H. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai

Chhaganlal Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(3) (Currently ITO WD. 22(1)(3)), Mumbai

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

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Ruchi Menthol P.Ltd, Mumbai

Max Fled & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

Bombay Sealink Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai

Stulz Chspl (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shree Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises, Mumbai

Jayesh A Shah, Thane vs. ITO WD 4(2), Thane

ITO 32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpaben R.Shah, Mumbai

ITO 32(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpaben R.Shah, Mumbai