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 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 69CSection 153CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 69csection 133(6)genuineness of the transactionloose paperssection 145(3)accommodation entrysection 133incriminating materialsection 131section 132(4)section 153csection 153

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

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

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

ITA 6893/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…ndustry norms. It was further submitted by the appellant that in the earlier years the gross profit rate of the appellant firm ranged from 7 to 9%. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom), whereby it was held that as sales have not been doubted and books have not been rejected, the disallowance of purchases should not be made. In the alternative, relying on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, ITA no. 553 of 2012, dt. 16.01.2013, it was argued before the ld. CIT(A) that only the profit po…

ACIT- CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

ACIT- CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2511/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

ACIT -CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S. Magna Distribution Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2510/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

ACIT Central Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Sucessor to Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 2507/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

ACIT -CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. Chalet Hotels Ltd. (As A Successor to M/S.Magna Distribution & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 2505/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1401/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

Chalet Hotels Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 1400/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2505/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2507/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2510/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2511/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2513/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit, Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ M/S. Chalet Hotels Ltd Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, (As A M/S. Magna Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Distribution & Point, Mumbai-400021. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.) Plot No. C-30 Raheja Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No.Aaack0411E आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1754/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1755/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1756/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Genext Hardware & Parks बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1918, Air India Vs. Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Building, Nariman Point, 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Mumbai-400021. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaccg5567F

Section 132Section 14ASection 69C

…ribe to the primary contention raised of the Revenue regarding non-attendance of summons by these six vendors. For this, M/s. Chalet Hotels Ltd we gainfully refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619. The Hon’ble Court, while upholding the decision of this Tribunal, had 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 genuine. The Hon’ble High Court, in that case, noted that the assessee has brought on record sufficient evidences to substant…

ACIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

…gs too when his comments were called. Reliance is placed on various judicial pronouncements. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mumbai vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. order dated December 17, 2012; [2013] 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bombay); [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bombay), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that: “Where sales supported purchase and payment was made through banks, merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer purchase could not be rejected as bogus. CO Nos. 71 & 105/Del/2022 Pinnacle Clothing Company Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expendit…

DCIT Circle-28(1), New Delhi vs. Pinnacle Clothing Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

…gs too when his comments were called. Reliance is placed on various judicial pronouncements. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Mumbai vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. order dated December 17, 2012; [2013] 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bombay); [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bombay), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that: “Where sales supported purchase and payment was made through banks, merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer purchase could not be rejected as bogus. CO Nos. 71 & 105/Del/2022 Pinnacle Clothing Company Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expendit…

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

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

ITA 445/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal & Diagold Designs Limited, Cc2070, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-12(2) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Aabcd3716 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…the assessee. Hence there is a 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…

ACIT CC-18 vs. Neena Hardeep Singh

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…v. Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani : Tax Appeal No. 1000 of 2018 (Guj.) 7. ACIT v. Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. : ITA No. 229/Del/2011 (Del.Trib.) 8. CIT v. Fancy International : [2008] 166 Taxman 183 (Del.) 9.CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. : [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 10. Diagnostics v. CIT : [201] 334 ITR 111(Cal.) 11. CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. : [2013] 40 Taxmann.com 206 (Guj.) 12. Geolife Organics v. ACIT : [2017] 58 ITR 297 (Mum Trib.) 8. Further, in regard to ground no. 2 raised in assessee’s cross objections, it was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the details of…

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1557/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

…that failure to produce parties ort of the proposition that failure to produce parties cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learne cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learned cou unsel relied on following decisions: (a) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) (b) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (Guj CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G HC) (c) ITO Vs Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPi…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1054/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

…that failure to produce parties ort of the proposition that failure to produce parties cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learne cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learned cou unsel relied on following decisions: (a) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) (b) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (Guj CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G HC) (c) ITO Vs Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPi…

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1053/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 153C

…that failure to produce parties ort of the proposition that failure to produce parties cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learne cannot be fatal to the assessee, the learned cou unsel relied on following decisions: (a) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom HC) (b) CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (Guj CIT Vs M/s Nangalia Fabrics P Ltd (ITA No. 689 of 2010) (G HC) (c) ITO Vs Shri TakhtmalBhuralalPi…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

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

ITA 122/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…,  ITO Vs Totaram B Sharma (Tax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008- Gujarat High Court)  DCIT Vs Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 0476 Gujarat),  CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills P Limited (2007) 160 Taxman 4- Gujarat,  CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (372 ITR 619) Bombay High Court,  DCIT Vs Rajiv G Kalathi (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012). B. On the issues that addition should be based on incriminating material (For AY 2010-11 & 2011-12)  CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573),  PCIT Vs Saumya Construction (P) limited (81 taxmann.com 292) Gujarat High Court.  CIT Vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nheva Sheva…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 115/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…,  ITO Vs Totaram B Sharma (Tax Appeal No. 1344 of 2008- Gujarat High Court)  DCIT Vs Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 0476 Gujarat),  CIT Vs Kashiram Textile Mills P Limited (2007) 160 Taxman 4- Gujarat,  CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (372 ITR 619) Bombay High Court,  DCIT Vs Rajiv G Kalathi (ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012). B. On the issues that addition should be based on incriminating material (For AY 2010-11 & 2011-12)  CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573),  PCIT Vs Saumya Construction (P) limited (81 taxmann.com 292) Gujarat High Court.  CIT Vs Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nheva Sheva…

Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dubey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 68Section 69Section 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 ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT…

Navin Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 32(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4183/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dubey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 68Section 69Section 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 ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT…

Navin Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 32(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4182/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Dubey, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, D.R
Section 68Section 69Section 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 ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT…