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 366,470 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.

Econ Pipe and Fitting P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5690/MUM/2016[22010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.5690/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Elcon Pipe & Fittings Private The Income Tax Officer- Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. B-8, Godown No.7, Prithvi Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Complex-Ii, Pipe Line Kalher, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Bhiwandi-421302. Thane – 421301. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabce9399J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Mrs. Beena Santosh, Dr

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.5690/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Elcon Pipe and Fittings Private The Income Tax Officer- Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. B-8, Godown No.7, Prithvi Mohan Plaza, Wayale Nagar, Complex-II, Pipe Line Kalher, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W), Bhiwandi-421302. Thane – 421301. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AABCE9399J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Ajay R. Singh प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Mrs. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 09.0…

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4939/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Sighi.T.A. No.4939/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Ito-32(1)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Abhay Automotive R.No.201, C-11, 2Nd Floor, Company, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, B/402, Sumer Nagar, Building Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. No.3, S.V. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aajfa3745K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…vailable at this address‟ and the assessee has also failed to produce the purchase parties before the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in relying upon judgment in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Enterprises (372 ITR 619) and Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT (254 ITR 259) (SC) without appreciating that the facts involved in the appellant‟s case are different from the facts of the above case laws.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of „resale of Motor, Truck and Auto parts and accessories‟. Assessee filed t…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. K. Ashok Kumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 6665/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala

Section 133ASection 69

…ton Mills Ltd. “Supreme Court of India (1995) 27 ITR 0126. K. Ashok Kumar & Co. ITA no.6665, 6239, 6666, 6240, /Mum./2013 ITA No. 3391, 4630/Mum./2014 ii) Judgement of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. “Bomaby High Court” Income Tax Appeal no. 5804 of 2010- 372 ITR 619. iii) Judgement of Adinath industries “Gujrat High Court” (2001) 252 ITR 0476. iv) Judgement of Ashok Taireja (HUF) ITAT “A” Bench, Mumbai. v) Judgement of Goolamally Hasanjee ITAT ”G” Bench, Mumbai. vi) Judgement of Ganpatraj A Sanghavi ITAT “G” Bench, Mumbai. vii) Judgement of Adamji & Co. ITAT “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. viii) Judgement of H.R. Mehta…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Anand Babulal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 144/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Acit – 25(2), C-12, Vs. Shri Anand Babu Lal Mehta, 7Th Floor, R. No. 703, 301, Aalap Building, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nehru Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parlei (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400049 Mumbai- 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aarpm2652F .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Rahul K. Hakani(AR)For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jadhav(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. We notice that the Settlement Commission has followed the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Bombay rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) in which the question for consideration before the Hon’ble Court was as under: “whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the tribunal was right in deleting the edition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,33,41,917/- towards bogus purchases even though the supplier was not existent and one of the parties had categori…

ITO 32(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross

ITA 5326/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajen R. Shah (Huf) 32(3)(1), Room No. 107, 1 St 604C, Sumer Nagar, S.V. Road, Floor, C-11, Pratayakshakar Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-92 Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Aaehr3734E Appellant .. Respondent

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajen R. Shah (HUF) 32(3)(1), Room No. 107, 1 st 604C, Sumer Nagar, S.V. Road, Floor, C-11, Pratayakshakar Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-92 Bhavan, BKC, Bandra, Mumbai-400051 PAN No.AAEHR3734E Appellant .. Respondent CO No. 215/Mum/2016 (In ITA No. 5326/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10) Shri Rajen Shah (HUF) Income Tax Officer, 32(3)(1), Room No. 107, 1 st 604C, Sumer Nagar, S.V. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-92 Vs. Floor, C-11, Pratayakshakar Bhavan, BKC, Bandra, Mumbai-400051 .. Appellant Resp…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…assessee has purchased goods from the suppliers who had proper VAT registration. The learned CIT(A) also noticed that the decisions referred by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp 5 M/s. Heeralal Meghraj Doshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.(372 ITR 619), wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that purchases cannot be considered as bogus merely on the basis of suspicion and also for the reason that the suppliers were not produced, when the assessee has furnished letter of confirmation, payment details, invoices, stock reconciliation etc. before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) also noticed…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7220/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…e Sale Tax, etc, were duly provided by the assessee. The cases relied upon by the Revenue to be argued on different facts. Reliance was placed upon 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.). 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the finding of the Ld.…

ACIT 22(3), Mumbai vs. Sanjay O. Goel Legal Heir, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 3241/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 22(3) Late Sanjay O. Goel Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor L/H Sagar Sanjay Goel Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Moti Mahal, 3Rd Floor Parel, Mumbai 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai 400012 Pan – Aafpg8625A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arju GarodiaFor Respondent: None

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…s were routed back to the assessee, the addition made by the AO as bogus purchases is unsustainable. We are fortified in this view of ours by the decisions of, inter alia, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom), Ashish International (supra) and the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012 dated 6 Late Sanjay O. Goel 20.08.2014 for A.Y. 2009-10). In the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find no requirement for interference in the order of the learned CIT(A) and con…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 5194/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negia C I T – 25(2) Shri Mahesh K. Shah Room No. 108, 1St Floor B-15, Paras Darshan C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (East) B.K.C., Bandra (East) Mumbai 400066 Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaips6406N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.A. KhanFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 69C

…rder of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of `96,45,645/- made under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure by erroneously relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom). It is further contended that the learned CIT(A) ignored the fact that the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties from whom bills were received, returned unserved and further that the assessee failed to produce these parties before the Assessing Officer (AO). It is also contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in igno…

Rupesh Chimanlal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6179/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Income Tax Appeal No.6179-6182/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs. Ito 3(3) Prop. Of Savla International 2Nd Floor, 16, Royal Tusk, B.S. Road Rani Mansion Dadar (W) Murbad `Road, Kalyan Mumbai – 400 028 (West), Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amrps4468B अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellants By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Shri Nagin Parikh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Rm Madhavi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : All These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-I, Thane Dated 25.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With 147 Of The Act. As The Facts & Issues Are Identical All The Appeals Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2.1 Assessee Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) In Sustaining The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Act In All These Appeals. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits, The Reopening Of 2 Rupesh Chimanlal Savla

For Respondent: Smt. RM Madhavi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 4

…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…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3604/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…he MCGM authorities. Just because the parties did not appear before the AO it cannot be held against the assessee. Our view find supports from the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT-1 v/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (372 ITR 619)(Bom.), wherein it was held that merely because the suppliers could not be produced before the authorities but other relevant details have been filed to show that the transaction was genuine the purchases cannot be disallowed. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law…

Pck Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.259/Mum/2015,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 M/S. Pck Metals Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-13, बनाम Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan, Mumbai. 65, 5Th Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aadcp8553Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Anukrishan Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Ms. AnuKrishan Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 53Section 68

…ared. The AO has not made any investigation with regard to the purchase from the said parties before treating the same as bogus purchase. The ld. AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp (372 ITR 619 (Bom), decisions of Bombay Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Sivshankar R. Sharma in ITA No. 5149/Mum/2014 dated 16.09.2016, in M/s Vision vs. ACIT in ITA No. 8501/Mum/2010 dated 13.04.2016, Shri Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj vs. ITO in ITA No. 4736/Mum/2014. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 4. We have consi…

ITO 14(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Digitron Computers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 160/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bipari-DR

Section 254(1)Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “अई अई अई” खंडपीठ अई Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“I”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/160/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-14(1)(3) M/s. Digitron Computers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.458, 4th Floor, Aayakar Unit No.2, Swas…

Digitron Computers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bipari-DR

Section 254(1)Section 69C

Amit Devani, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 705/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad,Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am Income Tax Appeal Nos.705, 706 & 707/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2010-11) Shri Amit Davani Vs. Ito 22 (1) (1) 601, Shri Nidhi Apartments Vashi Railway Station Cama Lane, Ghatkopar (W) Navi Mumbai Mumbai – 400 086 (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) स्र्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpd7658R अपीलार्थी की ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Kirit S Sanghavi प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kirit S SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…because the stock reconciliation filed by the appellant had not been doubted by the A.O., it cannot be stated that there was no purchase at all relating to these entries. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. (372 ITR 619) has held that, just because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69C cannot be upheld. At the same time, the inability of the appellant to produce details regarding these purcha…

ITO, WD-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karsan Nandu, Mumbai

In the result, in my view, order of CIT(A) deserves to be set-aside and Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs

ITA 2651/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Kirtane

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…een made to the said parties through banking channels. It required further collection of evidence by the Assessing Officer to prove the bogus nature of such transactions. In fact, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P.) Ltd., 372 ITR 619 (Bom) has observed that merely because suppliers did not appear before the Assessing Officer, it could not be concluded that the purchases were non-genuine when assessee had discharged his onus by showing copies of bank statement evidencing payments through account payee cheques to suppliers, stock reconciliation statement, etc. In the present ca…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vaman International P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 794/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Income Tax Officer-13-3(3) M/S. Vaman International P. Ltd. Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor 3Rd Floor, Euro House, Above Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Tangent Furniture, Behind Inorbit Mumbai 400020 Mall, Off Link Road, Chincholi Bunder, Malad (W), Mumbai - 064 Pan – Aabcv5464F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ranathir SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…d not have made the additions without recording findings controverting the evidences produced/placed before him. The learned CIT(A), inter alia, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) (Bom) by which he held the assessee’s case was squarely covered, deleted the addition of `4,75,42,385/- under section 69C of the Act. 5 M/s. Vaman International P. Ltd. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 12.11.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11, Revenue has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - “i. Whether on the fact…

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Vipin B Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6821/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…see submitted that on similar facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had deleted such additions made under section 69C of the Act in, inter alia, the following cases: - (i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); (ii) DCIT vs. Sri Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012; (iii) Ramesh Kumar & Co. Vs ACIT (ITA No. 2955/Mum/2014; (iv) ACIT vs. Vishal P. Mehta (ITA No. 5313/Mum/2013). 5.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On an appreciation o…

Vipin Bhimraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6381/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

Govind Bhilu Rathod, Vasai vs. ITO WD 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accepted

ITA 439/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 439/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 253Section 271(1)Section 69C

…accounts of the supplier to find out whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their accounts. The ld AR of the assessee further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited reported vide 372 ITR 619(Bom) and various decisions of this Tribunal, copies of which are filed in the paper book. On the other hand, the Learned DR for the revenue argued that notices sent to all those dealers/ parties but nobody appeared nor filed their reply in response to the notice served upon them. The assessee has not called any of the parties during the reassessm…