CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Ravi Shambhulal Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO -17 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleravi Shambhulal Mange V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(1) Bharat Wood Works, 26 Mumbai Sindhubaug A, Tilak Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400077 Pan: Aacpb4205G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Shambhulal Mange v. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(1) Bharat Wood Works, 26 Mumbai Sindhubaug A, Tilak Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400077 PAN: AACPB4205G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Hariom Tulsiyan Department Represented by : Shri Ashish Kumar Date of Hearing : 27.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Infinity Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

Infinity Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

…by the Tribunal. In fact, Tribunal has only affirmed the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom): wherein an identical fact situation arose did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and held that no substantial question of law arose from such order. It was held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the AO, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20. On thorou…

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

…ssessing officer. Accordingly, in the final assessment order. The above addition was retained. 028. The learned it authorized representative has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court in case of Nikunj exempt enterprises private limited 372 ITR 619 wherein it has been held that where sale supported purchase and payments were made through banks. Merely because suppliers had not appeared before the assessing officer purchases could not be rejected as bogus. He further reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 029. The learned departmental representative vehemently support…

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

…ssessing officer. Accordingly, in the final assessment order. The above addition was retained. 028. The learned it authorized representative has relied upon the decision of the Honourable Bombay High Court in case of Nikunj exempt enterprises private limited 372 ITR 619 wherein it has been held that where sale supported purchase and payments were made through banks. Merely because suppliers had not appeared before the assessing officer purchases could not be rejected as bogus. He further reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. 029. The learned departmental representative vehemently support…

DCIT- CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

…y shown 18.11% as gross profit on the sales which has also been accepted and taxed by the revenue authority. In identical circumstances when sales are not doubted, in the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) it was held that when sales are not doubted no disallowance for bogus purchases is permissible. Furthermore, Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shapoourji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. (supra) vide order dated 4.3.2020 has held as under :- (A.Ys: 2014-15 & 2015-16) M/s. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., “18. Thus, we find that according to the Tribunal…

Prithviraj Kavedi, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1179/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-16(3)(1), Prithviraj Kavedi 447, Aayakar Bhavan, M. 5/B1, Great Eastern Royale, बिधम/ K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Bellasis Bridge Road, Vs. Opposite Meru Tower, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 004. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abdpk4146K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sidharth Kothari, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 25.11.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 For Ay 2015-16. 2

…d, the purchases cannot be treated as bogus, simply because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or has not responded. This principle has been followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nickunj Exim Enterprise reported in (2015) 372 ITR 619; further, in the case of PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 1940 of 2017) order dated 29th June 2020, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that merely relying on information obtained from Sales Tax Department and some statements are not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus, if assessee has filed the copies of purchase bills…

M/S. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir 2(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1823, 1819 & 1821/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) ACIT Cen. Cir,- 2(4), M/s Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 802, Pratistha बिधम/ 4th floor, Sri Joravar Bhavan, Bhavan, Old CGO Vs. Annexe, M. K. Marg, 93, M. K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCN0991K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1856, 1855 & 1853/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2…

DCIT Cent. Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 HGP Community Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(2), successor to Alpha Associates, 906, 9th floor, Pratistha Bhavan, 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Old CGO Building, (Annexe), Marg, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 201…

DCIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Alpha Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 HGP Community Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(2), successor to Alpha Associates, 906, 9th floor, Pratistha Bhavan, 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Old CGO Building, (Annexe), Marg, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 201…

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT Cent. Cir-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()And Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 HGP Community Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(2), successor to Alpha Associates, 906, 9th floor, Pratistha Bhavan, 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, F P J Vs. Old CGO Building, (Annexe), Marg, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN No. AADCH 8389 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 201…