CIT v. Simit P. Seth

38 Taxmann.com 385High Court2013#283 most cited

278

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also reported as

356 ITR 290

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 131 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

unexplained expenditure section 69c section 133(6)accommodation entry commissioner (appeals)section 133 section 131 reassessment proceedings section 143(1)assistant commissioner section 132 section 148

Judgments citing CIT v. Simit P. Seth

DCIT, Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. Balaji Impex, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik - Ld.DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…for the conclusion that only profit attributable to the unaccounted sales could be Assessment Year :2010-11 brought to tax. Similar reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), Simit P.Sheth (38 Taxmann.com 385) and Sanjay Oil Cake Ind. (316 ITR 274). Applying the ratio of these decisions, Ld. CIT(A) estimated additions @12.5% of these purchases with set-off of Gross Profit already shown by the assessee in the regular books in respect of purchases made from the said 4 suppliers. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is under further appeal b…

B Arvindkumar & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5959/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69

…out the correct element of profit embedded in such bogus purchases which assessee would have earned by making purchases from unknown parties. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), Simit P.Sheth (38 Taxmann.com 385) and Sanjay Oil Cake Ind. (316 ITR 274), Ld. CIT(A) finally came to a conclusion that a reasonable estimation of profit was to be made against these purchases. Finding that the task force group for diamond industry constituted by the Government of India, after considering the BAP scheme, has recommended presumptive tax of 3% for manufactur…

Income Tax Officer 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.J J Timber Industries, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5857/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5857/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5857/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s J J Timber Industries, ITO – 32(2)(1), D-9m 3rd floor, Saibaba C-11, 3rd floor, Dham, Saibaba Nagar, Nr. बिधम/ Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Saibaba Temple, Borivali Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. West, Mumbai-400 092 Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AADFJ5482E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Mohd. Rizwan, DR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/…

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Doshi Medical Service, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Central Circle-3(2) Vs. Doshi Medical Service 19, 5Th Khetwadi Lane Room No.1913, Air India Building Lehri Building Nariman Point Svp Road Mumbai-400 021 Khetwadi Mumbai-400 004

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT,Central Circle-3(2) Vs. Doshi Medical Service 19, 5th Khetwadi Lane Room No.1913, Air India Building Lehri Building Nariman Point SVP Road Mumbai-400 021 Khetwadi Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No.AAAFD0236F Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri. Abhijit Patankar, CIT,DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 22/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against, the order of t…

ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Hina Arvind Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-32(1)(5), Vs. Smt. Hina Arvind Shah, Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, B-14, Rajdeep Co-Op Hsg C-11, Pratyakshkar Society, Carter Road No. 01, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Boriwali (E), Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400066. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. Bfdps 6261 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the estimated suppressed profit margin embedded in such amounts of purchases could only be disallowed and subjected to tax. 6.1.30 Similarly, in yet another decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon'ble Court was seized with a similar issue where the A.O. had 3 ITO Vs Smt. Hina Arvind Shah found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The A.O. in that case added the entire amount…

ITO-8(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunbeam Monochem Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-8(2)(4), Vs. M/S Sunbeam Monochem Room No. 618, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. 201/B, Runwal & Omkar Road, Mumbai-400020. Esquare, Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Eastern Express Highway, Sion (E), Mumbai-400022. Pan/Gir No.Aabcs 8172 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ade by the assessee were not disputed. After considering various judicial pronouncements, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% mainly relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj) and in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj). After considering various judicial pronouncements and the facts of the case, 3 ITO Vs Sunbeam Monochem P Ltd. the ld. CIT(A) found that 12.5% addition in respect of bogus purchases will serve the end of justice. Nothing was brought on record so as to persuad…

Dinesh Babulal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5771/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinesh Babulal Jain, The Ito 19(1)(4), 321, Amrut Diamond House, Income Tax Office, Tata Road No. 1, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Grant Road (West), Pan : Agvpj0725E Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinesh Babulal Jain, The ITO 19(1)(4), 321, Amrut Diamond House, Income Tax Office, Tata Road No. 1, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Grant Road (West), PAN : AGVPJ0725E Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi (AR) Revenue by : Shri R. Boopathi (DR) Date of Hearing: 30/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.…

Ratnagiri Stainless P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6011/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Ito 5(3)(1), Mumbai. Ltd., Office No. 8, 4Th Floor, Vs. 245/247, Alankar Cinema Building S V P Road, Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aadcr2993P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai. Ltd., Office No. 8, 4th floor, Vs. 245/247, Alankar Cinema Building S V P Road, Mumbai-400004 PAN No. AADCR2993P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vimal Punmiya, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR Date of hearing : 26/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 16/12/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed again…

ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ketan Dhirajlal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5560/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT vs. Kishor Amrutlal Pate/. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed". Similarly, in yet another decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon'ble Court was seized with a similar issue where the A.O. had found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The A.O. in that case added the entire amount of purchases to gross profit of…

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…luding those by another Government authority, viz,, Maharashtra Sales Tax authority before whom affidavit was filed stating that only bogus bills were supplied without delivery of goods. 7.9 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon’ble Court (which was relied by the AO for making the addition) was seized with a similar issue where the A.O. had found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus- The A,O. in that case ad…

Income Tax Officer 32(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Kawachi Group, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6526/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-32(2)(2), Vs. M/S Kawachi Group, Room No. 304, 3Rd Floor, 228/2Nd Flr, Neha Industrial C-11, Pratyakshakar Estate, Near Hyundai Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Service Station, Borivali-E- Complex, Bandra (E), 66. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.Aaahk 6370 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.O.-32(2)(2), Vs. M/s Kawachi Group, Room No. 304, 3rd Floor, 228/2nd Flr, Neha Industrial C-11, Pratyakshakar Estate, Near Hyundai Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Service Station, Borivali-E- Complex, Bandra (E), 66. Mumbai-400051. PAN/GIR No.AAAHK 6370 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Sr.DR) Assessee by None Date of Hearing 05/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement 06/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-…

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2009-10 is allowed and for AYs 2010-

ITA 6145/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aabff3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Fashion Impex, Income Tax Officer, 205, Ashish Industries Estate, Vs. 21(1)(5), Piramal Gokhale Road (S), Dadar (West) Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400025. Mumbai-400012. PAN No. AABFF3486G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 29/11/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.…

M/S.Fashion Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offier-21(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2009-10 is allowed and for AYs 2010-

ITA 6144/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Dave & Sashank Dundu, ARsFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234A

Ravindra P. Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD - 3 (5), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5583/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 5581, 5582 & 5583/MUM/2018 (A. Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Ravindra P. Jadhav v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Prop. M/s. Raviraj Chemicals Rani Mansion, Murbad Road A-102, Silver Coin Near Bhanu Nagar Kalyan (W) - 421301 Bhagatsingh Road, Dombivli (E) Thane – 421201 PAN: AARPJ3618E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari Date of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019…

Ravindra P. Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD - 3 (5), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5582/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 143(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Star Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised in CO and case laws relied on by assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2017 & Cross Objection No.– 01/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Sanghvi Star Retail Acit – 11(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1, Ground बिधम/ Plot No. 75, C-14, Cross Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Marol Midc, Vs. M. K. Road, Anderi (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aalcs5646N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.10.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 10.04.17 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2009-10. 2

For Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, AR

Section 132Section 133Section 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2017 & Cross objection No.– 01/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s Sanghvi Star Retail ACIT – 11(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1, Ground बिधम/ Plot No. 75, C-14, Cross floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Marol MIDC, Vs. M. K. Road, Anderi (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AALCS5646N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Suchek Anch…

Income Tax Officer 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indu Hasmukh Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5864/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 32(1)(5) V. Smt Indu Hasmukh Panchal Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor A/9/401, Siddharth Nagar C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Katau Mills Compound Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Highway, Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Agspp7461Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nikita Sanghavi Department By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 32(1)(5) v. Smt Indu Hasmukh Panchal Room No. 203, 2nd Floor A/9/401, Siddharth Nagar C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Katau Mills Compound Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Highway, Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 066 PAN: AGSPP7461Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Nikita Sanghavi Department by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing : 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This ap…

ITO - 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shripal G. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3011/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) V. Shri Shripal G. Jain Room No. 219, 2Nd Floor 88-92, 1St Pathan Street Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Adlpj8781H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ChamariaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…art of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue cannot rely on any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. 8.11 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon’ble Court (which was relied by the AO for making the addition) was seized with a similar issue where the A.O. had found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The A.O. in that case ad…

Prateek Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3861/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Prateek Gupta Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 6Th New Harileela House Income Tax-Cc-4(2) Mint Road, Fort Mumbai, Air India Building 19Th Floor, Room No.1918, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaspg9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Prateek Gupta 6Th New Harileela House Income Tax-Cc-4(2) Mumbai, Air India Mint Road, Fort Building Mumbai – 400 001 19Th Floor, Room No.1918, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaspg9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & Shri Prateek Gupta Vs. Dy. Commissioner of 6th New Harileela House Income Tax-CC-4(2) Mint Road, Fort Mumbai, Air India Building 19th Floor, Room No.1918, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AASPG9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Shri Prateek Gupta 6th New Harileela House Income Tax-CC-4(2) Mumbai, Air India Mint Road, Fort Building Mumbai – 400 001 19th Floor, Room No.1918, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No.AASPG9494L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asse…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…Sharma AIR 1996 SC 364 (33) Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) (34) Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO (IT Appeal no. 2801 & 2937 (Ahd) of 2008 dated 20.05.2011 (35) Vijay Proteins Ltd., vs. ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) (36) CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj) (37) Vijay M. Mistry Construciton Ltd., 355 ITR 498 (Guj) 8.3 The learned CIT(A) observed that the above cases are directly applicable to the facts of the assessee‟s case. The learned CIT(A) observed that these parties are not existing but however AO had not given any adverse finding as to consumption /sales of goods and as per learn…