CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Sachin Anantray Ghelani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ Ito 27(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpg2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

…or from the grey market without bills. Thus, there ought to be some purchases made and hence, entire disallowance is not justified. In this regard, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd., 372 ITR 619 (Bombay), is quite relevant wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that - When the assessee have filed letter of confirmations of the suppliers, Bank statement highlighting the payment entries through account payee cheque copies of invoices, stock reconciliation statements before the AO; and merely cause the suppliers did not appear before the AO, o…

DCIT RG- 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atc India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5955/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-9(1)(2) M/S. Atc India Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Room No.260-A, 2Nd Floor [Formerly Known As Xcel Telecom Pvt. Ltd.] बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम 37/38, L.K. Arcade, Marol Naka Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 059. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-7669-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Sh. Anadi Varma – Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sh. Satyen Sethi - Ld.Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ : 11/04/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तार"ख / : 03/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…fact the similar purchases made by assessee from these 3 entities in AY 2009-10 was accepted by the revenue and the same were not under doubt. 3.5 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs Nikuj Eximp Pvt. Ltd. [2015 372 ITR 619] & ITO Vs Vaman International Pvt Ltd [ITA No. 794/Mum/2015 dated 16/11/2016] to submit that merely because the parties did not respond to the notices issued u/s 133(6), the purchases could not be treated as bogus specially when the assessee has brought on record substantial documentary evidences to establish the genuineness of the purchase trans…

Pravin Dayaldas Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO - 32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…llowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases thereby confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.13,96,441/- by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom.). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the entire purchases can not be added to the income of the assessee and it is only a profit element embedded in these purchases which should be brought to tax and accordingly applied a rate of 12.5% . 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the assessee is engage…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…se of Ramesh Kumar & Co. v. ACIT in ITA no. 2959/Mum/2014 b) Mumbai-tribunal decision in the case of DCIT v. Premsons reported in 139 TTJ 159(Mum-trib.) c) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited(2015) 372 ITR 619(Bom.) 5. The learned CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee both on legal ground challenging invocation of provisions of Section 147 of I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 the 1961 Act to reopen concluded assessment as well on merits and upheld the additions as were made by the AO to the income of the assessee @ 14.55% of the…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…se of Ramesh Kumar & Co. v. ACIT in ITA no. 2959/Mum/2014 b) Mumbai-tribunal decision in the case of DCIT v. Premsons reported in 139 TTJ 159(Mum-trib.) c) Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited(2015) 372 ITR 619(Bom.) 5. The learned CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee both on legal ground challenging invocation of provisions of Section 147 of I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 the 1961 Act to reopen concluded assessment as well on merits and upheld the additions as were made by the AO to the income of the assessee @ 14.55% of the…

Shah Tehchnical Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Shah Technical ACIT 2(3)(2), Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Room No.552, 5th Floor, 407, Raheja Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCS4968D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The…

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Traders & Computechnics, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2101/Mum/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) बनधम/ Acit 27(3), Mumbai M/S. Tirupati Traders & 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Computechnics, Vs. 22A, Sindh Society, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Shitala Nursing Home, Complex, Vashi, Navi Chembur, (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400071. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabft0586F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy/ Ms. Neelima Nadkarni (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Id Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase To Rs.16,19,724/-(Being 12.5% Of The Said Bogus Purchase To Rs. 1,29,57,789/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.1,21,86,039/-( Being Peak Of Total Bogus Purchases Of Rs, 1,29,57,789/- Made In The Assessment U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Nk Proteins Ltd. V/S Dt [292 Ctr (Guj) 354(2016), Upholding The Decision Of Hon'Ble Gujrat High Court

…. The AO has only found the impugned supplier as a bogus party.” 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, we find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Simit P. Sheth ITA. No.553 of 2012 dated 16.01.2013 and in the case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd., ITA. No. 63 of 2012 dated 23.10.2012 and other cases which has been mentioned in the order depicted above. The CIT(A) has considered the profit embedded in the bogus purchase if any. In the instant case, t…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh M. Parmar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Shri Mukesh Mavji Parmar, Room No. 704, C-11, B-16, Shreyas Industrial Estate, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Nr. Jay Coach, Goregaon (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai - 400063 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaepp2846H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ses cannot be disallowed. We notice that in the present case, the assessee failed to produce the parties from whom the purchases were shown but as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) has held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Phoneix Foils Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4385/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred on confirming the additions of amounts in question. 11. Under the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vrs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) on the issue of bogus purchases had also deleted the additions made by the AO on account of so called bogus purchases by holding that merely because of supplier have not appeared before the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. 12. The Coordinate Bench of Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of D…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Dinesh S. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2012-13

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 3.6. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fact…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 3.6. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fact…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 3.6. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fact…

Ralf Jems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 3.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Shri Jayantilal K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayantilal K Jain, Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), 35, Krishna Kunj, Kika Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Street, Gulalwadi, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aajpj8095K

…sufficient evidence on file to endorse 16 Jayantilal K. Jain the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…

Shri Ramesh C.Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…rmity and there are not sufficient evidence on file to endorse the view taken by the AO. So, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 against the AO.” 2.7. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) held/observed as under:- “7. We have considered the submission on behalf of the Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement, i.e., reconciliation statement but also in view of the other fac…