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 367,154 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.

Hgp Community Pvt.Ltd Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.Central Cir -1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1559/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

…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…

M/S. Hgp Community Pvt. Lt D Sucessor to Alpha Associates, Mumbai vs. Dy. C.I.T. .Cent. Cir.-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground

ITA 1558/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

…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…

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

In the result, the ground

ITA 1557/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

…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…

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

In the result, the ground

ITA 1556/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR

…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 -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

DCIT -CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3751/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

DCIT - CC - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3750/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

DCIT -CC -8 (4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3749/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2854/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2853/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

Bermaco Energy System Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC-47 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2852/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 44A

…submission that there cannot be any sales without any corresponding purchases. 13. The Ld.CIT(A), while deleting the impugned addition has relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of NikunjExim Enterprises (P) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) wherein it was held that the inability of the assessee to produce the suppliers is not the only criteria to show that the purchases were bogus. The Ld.CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Shri Rattan SinghRathod (supra) wherein it was held that in the case of contract, if the details furnished by the assessee are not reliable, then est…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek L. Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 344/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.344/Srt/2019 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Abhishek L.Jain 2(3)(7), Room No. 414, 4Th Prop Of Manglam Export, Vs Floor, Anavil Business Centre, 302, Pipla Sheri, Adajan-Hajira Road, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003 Pan : Abxpj 0344 G Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…Guj)  CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj)  PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. 422 ITR 520 (Bom)  PCIT vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. & Ors. 104 CCH 391 (Bom)  H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT 289 ITR 561 (Bom)  CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom)  Haryana Jwellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 2315/Del/2018 (Delhi. Trib)]  Gopinath Gems vs. ITO [ITA No.624-629/SRT/2018 (Surat Trib.)]  Pankaj K Jain HUF vs. ITO [269/SRT/2017 (Surat Trib.)]  ACIT vs. Rushabh International [ITA No.347, 349- 350/SRT/2018 (Surat Trib.)] 13 Sh. Abhishek L. Jain  Brijkishor R Sonkhiya vs. DCIT [ITA No.3…

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2316/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Dcit(Ltu-I), Mumbai Vs M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-I, World Trade Plot No.64, Mehta House Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 Road No.13, Midc , Andheri (E) 005 Mumbai-400 093 Pan : Aaacf0252G Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…he said addition on the pretext that the assessee is not at fault when the seller is not traceable or is involved in dubious acts. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom). Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is in appeal before us on the ground of deletion of disallowance of purchases from V3 Enterprises. 5. The Ld.DR contended that the assessee’s case was reopened subsequent to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that M/s V3 Enterprises wi…

Prashant Madhusudan Mahagaokar, Thane vs. DCIT CC 2, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant for Assessment Year

ITA 1243/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…e additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted: - CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 (SC) - Pr. CIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1940 of 2017, decided on January 29, 2020] - CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 619(Bom) 20. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record including the remand reports dated 29.08.2018 and 25.05.2016. The Appellant had contended before the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has failed to grant proper opportunity to the Appellant and has failed to make proper enquiry before making the addition/disallo…

M/S. Paras Plastic Processors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. PAN No. AAEFP 8206 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by : Ms. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by…

I.T.O. Ward -2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Ramansingh Balbirsingh Swanni, Nagpur

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

ITA 472/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito Vs. Ramsingh Balbirsingh Swanni Ward 2(2) Room No. 315, Prop: Industrial Supply Syndicate 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhawan Bf-2, Amar Vihar, Kamptee Road Telangkhedi Road, Nagpur Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan No.:Aybps 9233 L Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Vitthal M Bhosle Jcit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Abhay Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 17/05/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M Bhosle JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…he assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that purchases cannot be rejected as bogus if it is supported by documentary evidences for which the ld. AR relied on the following cases laws. 1. CIT vs Nikuj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 619-Bombay H.C) 2. Pr. CIT vs Uni Packs (India) (108 taxmann.com 454-Bombay H.C.) 3. CIT vs Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. (418 ITR 215-SC) 2.5 We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. The ld. AR of the assesse reiterated the submissions as made befo…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik vs. M/S. Kirti Foods Ltd, Latur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1684/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Kirti Foods Ltd, Commissioner Of Income Vs 79-C, Market Yard, Tax, Circle-2, Nahik. Latur – 413512. Pan: Aabck 5376 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.08.2019. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Regular Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Finalized Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,90,85,170/-. The Appellant Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) & Further Itat Where It Got Partial Relief. The Assessing Officer Received Information From The Sales Tax Department Regarding Parties Who Provided Only Bills Without Actual Delivery Of Goods, There Were Certain Parties Who Provided Such Bills To The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ribunal 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 Commissioner of Income-tax -1, Mumbai v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises(P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 619; ITA No.1684/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT vs. M/s.Kirti Foods Ltd., (R) 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 Assessing Officer, no conclusion…

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ealt with similar issue, more so particularly, in assessee’s own case and had ruled that when sales are not in doubt, then 100% disallowance for bogus purchases cannot be made and relied on Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs M. Haji Adam & Co Income Tax Appeal 4 No.1004 of 2016 dated 11/2/2019. We find it essential to cull out the relevant extract from the said order for ready reference as stated below:- “ 6. I respectfully following the aforesaid judgement of the honourable High Court set aside the matter to the f…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur vs. Mesers Satyanarayan Nathulal, Tilda-Neora

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri
Section 131Section 133ASection 254(4)

…the assessee out of the stock purchased from the above dealers, it is obvious that first purchase was made and then these were sold. 6. We rely of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. [372 ITR 619] and copy of judgment is enclosed. 7. We submit the following documents: i) TIN No. of the suspicious vendor. ii) Details of Mandi Anugya received from the so called suspicious vendor. iii) Quantitative details for the F.Y. 2013-2014. iv) Details of Party wise broken sale during the F.Y. 2013-14. v) Yield comparison of last three year. vi) Ass…

Sapankumar U. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 30 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5204/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Challenging The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Also On Merits, We Find That The Assessee Has Raised One Crucial Ground Vide Ground No.3 That Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not Served On Him Before The Completion Of Assessment Proceedings Within The Prescribed Time. Since, This Is The Jurisdictional Issue, We Deem It Fit To Address The Same First.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ibunal has only affirmed the finding of the frst appellate authority. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two lower appellate authorities. 19. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai v/s. Nikunj Eximpp Enterpprises(P.) Ltd.372 ITR 619; 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 Assessing Officer, no conclusion could be arrived at that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 20.…