CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

ITO -28(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mac Cyechem Industries, 2010-11

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 28(2)(2) V. M/S. Mac Dyechem Industries Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor D-24/7, Opp. Balmer Lawrie Ltd., Midc Ttc Industries Area Tower No. 6 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400705 Vashi Railway Station Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai Pan: Aaefm6471D (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Ms. Kranti Yadav

…ect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following various judicial pronouncements along with decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 17.5% of the non-genuine purchases. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “8. The Ground No. 2 of the appeal is against addition of Rs.19,40,380/- being 100% of total purchases made from the 6 parties. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were fou…

ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohibullah A J Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.145 & 146/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito – 22(2)(1) Shri Mohibullah A.J. Khan, 312, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 50, Mehboob Alam Chawl, Lal Baug, Parel, Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 012 Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 098

…his books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act made an addition of 25% of the value of the impugned purchases u/s 69C of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 461 (Guj), therein opined that in all fairness the addition in the hands of the assessee was liable to be restricted to the extent of 12.5% of the value of the impugned purchases. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have perused the order of the CIT(A) and after giving a thoughtful consideration find no infirmity…

ITO - 22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Mohibullah A J Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.145 & 146/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito – 22(2)(1) Shri Mohibullah A.J. Khan, 312, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 50, Mehboob Alam Chawl, Lal Baug, Parel, Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 012 Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 098

…his books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act made an addition of 25% of the value of the impugned purchases u/s 69C of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 461 (Guj), therein opined that in all fairness the addition in the hands of the assessee was liable to be restricted to the extent of 12.5% of the value of the impugned purchases. 5. Aggrieved, the revenue has carried the matter in appeal before us. We have perused the order of the CIT(A) and after giving a thoughtful consideration find no infirmity…

Kamlesh M. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

ITO 28(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S N G Group, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…sclosed parties in the grey market at lower rates and purchases were shown as being made from the impugned parties to suppress its profits.. In such a situation, the various Courts including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 have held that not the entire purchases but only the profit element embedded in these purchases was to be disallowed. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in this case has held that profit margin of 12.5% of the bogus purchases will be reasonable. Respectfully following the Order in the case of Simit P. Sheth the addition is restricted to 12.5% of the b…

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hina Arvind Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

ITO-33(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Priyesh Sashikant Nanavati, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

…edings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to assess the profit element embedded in the purchases @ 12.5% instead of 100% by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth – 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) by holding that in case of hawala purchases the materials is procured from the grey market and therefore only a profit element in the said purchases could be brought to tax and not the entire purchases. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that in this case the assessee was undoubtedly and undispu…

Asst CIT Cir. 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S All Wave A V Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-Assessment Year : 2009-10 Asst.Cit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S. All Wave A V Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 420/A, Shah & Bahar Industrial Vs Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan : Aadca3704H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…dition of Rs.1,94,720 being 12.5% of the purchases as non-genuine purchases in respect of other nine parties out of 11 parties, it is seen that A.O has duly considered the submission of the assessee and accordingly relied in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has made estimation @12.5% of alleged bogus purchases as non-genuine and added the same as suppressed profit to the income returned. 3.6 Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decisions, the addition made by the A.O. in respect of purchase of Rs.15,57,758 from…

Shri. Aunil Amarchand Varma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh: A.Y : 2011-12 Sunil Amarchand Varma Vs. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(4), A-504, Keshav Shrushti, Opp. Hotel Mumbai. (Respondent) Green, Link Road, Chincholi Bunder, Malad (W), Mumbai 400 064. Pan : Aaepv7740A (Appellant)

…stated that assessee might have made purchases from grey market at a lower price and might have saved VAT. Hence, a reasonable profit can be estimated on the same. Similar view is taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has confirmed estimation of profit rate at 12.5%, but in another business, not in iron and steel. Hence, I estimate the profit rate at 5% instead of 12.5% estimated by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the o…

ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Dvm Engineering Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh: A.Y : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(2), Vs. M/S. Dvm Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. (Appellant) 303, Upahar – 2, Off J.P. Road, Seven Bunglows, Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. Pan : Aaccd1036C (Respondent)

…o the seller parties and noted that the assessee could not produce the delivery challans or the parties for examination. The CIT(A) considering the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High 3 M/s. DVM Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) and the order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs Haware Construction (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 168 (Mumbai Trib.) restricted the profit rate at 12% by observing in paragraph 4.1.6 as under :- “4.1.6 Taking into account all the relevant facts of the case I hold that being the gross profit 12% over and above the GP declared…

Dinesh S Dhokar, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh: A.Y : 2009-10 Dinesh S. Dhokar Vs. Income Tax Officer – 19(1)(4), Room No. 6, Building No. 1, Mumbai. (Respondent) Dadarkar Compound, Vaibhav, C-Wing, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034. Pan : Aaapd8605N (Appellant)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT : A.Y : 2009-10 Dinesh S. Dhokar Vs. Income Tax Officer – 19(1)(4), Room no. 6, Building No. 1, Mumbai. (Respondent) Dadarkar Compound, Vaibhav, C-Wing, 1st floor, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 034. PAN : AAAPD8605N (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Dixit Jain Respondent by : Shri Vaibhav Date of Hearing : 25/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25/10/2021 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (in short ‘CIT(A)’) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-29/IT-…

Suresh Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

…that additions should be restricted to the benefits obtained by using such accommodation entry. Thus the AO is not justified to disallow entire purchases without questioning the sale. Following the ratio of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) disallowance of 12.5% of purchase will be justified. Thus disallowance is upheld however it is restricted to 12.5% of the purchases from suspicious hawala dealers. The grounds of appeal are therefore Partly Allowed.” 4. Against above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. I have heard both the counsel and perused the record.…

M/S Superflo Filters Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1772/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Superflo Filters Pvt. बिधम/ Ito-11(2)(4) Ltd. Room No.349/477, Aayakar Vs. B-5, 103/104, Greenland Co. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Op. Soc, Shrinivas Bagarka Mumbai-400020. Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4955N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit(A)"] Erred In Passing The Order Dated 28.01.2019 Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward — 11(2)(4), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld. Ao’ Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The

…ht it fit to bring to tax only the profit element embedded in the value of such purchases and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Against the said direction of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not preferred any appeal before us and only the revenue had preferred this impugned appeal. We find that even though the assessee could not prove the genuineness of purchases made from the aforesaid suppliers, the corresponding sales made out of such purchases has not been disp…

ITO 28(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Shri. Sabesan N Nadar, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

…sclosed parties in the grey market at lower rates and purchases were shown as being made from the impugned parties to suppress its profits.. In such a situation; the various Courts including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 have held that not the entire purchases but only the profit element embedded in these purchases was to be disallowed. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in this case has held that profit margin of 12.5% of the bogus purchases will be reasonable. Respectfully following the Order in the case of Simit P. Sheth the addition is restricted to 12.5% of the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Time Technoplast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6207, 6208, 6209, 6210, 6211, 6212 & 6213/M/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 ACIT 11(3), M/s. Time Technoplast Room No.204, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 102, Todi Complex, Vs. 2nd Floor, 35 Saki Vihar Rd., Maharshi Karve Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 072 PAN: AAACT2783J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri S.C. Tiwari, D.R. Date of Hea…

ITO - 32(1)(8), Mumbai vs. Shir Sandeep Baburav Birje, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 32(1)(8) V. Shri Sandeep Baburav Birje Room No. 735, 7Th Floor Room No. 9, Sai Krupa Chawl Kautilya Bhavan Ramchandra Pawaskar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Dahisar (W), Mumbai -400068 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ajfpb3187K (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Sajay J. Shethi

…dered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of 4 Shri Sandeep Baburav Birje the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “5. Ground Nos. 3 to 9 raised by the appellant relate to the addition of Rs.16,51,406 being 15% of the purchases as non-genuine purchases. The AO has mentioned in the order that as per the information from the Sales tax department…

ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh Vasant Raut, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of appeal enumerated above at 2.1 to 2.5 are partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7051/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Mahesh Vasant Raut 6B/104, Chandivali Sunview Tax, Circle Chs Ltd., Mhada Colony, Room No. 510, 5Th Floor, C-10, Vs. Chandivali Andheri(E), Pratykshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400 072 Bandra-400 051 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Adppr2310E अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent By : Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Dr स नवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 Aadosa / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Acit-26(2)/It.508/2015-16 Vide Dated 28.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-26(2) Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Ys. 2010-11 Vide Dated 21.01.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Restring The Disallowance Made By Ao Applying The Profit Rate At 25% Of The Bogus

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 7051/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner of Income Mahesh Vasant Raut 6B/104, Chandivali Sunview Tax, Circle CHS Ltd., MHADA colony, Room No. 510, 5th Floor, C-10, Vs. Chandivali Andheri(E), Pratykshakar Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400 072 Bandra-400 051 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. ADPPR2310E अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant by :…

Dy CIT, Circle-2, Kalyan vs. Smt. Shashikala R. Bohra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bledcit – Circle -2 V. Smt Shashikala R. Bohra 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Building Prop. Of M/S. Ferrocraft Enterprises A-98, Anand Nagar, Addl. Midc Sayle Nagar, Kadakapada Ambernath (E), Mumbai -421506 Kalyan (W), Mumbai -421301 Pan: Affpb9596Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sunil Makhija Assessee By : Department By Shri Sajay J. Shethi

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – Circle -2 v. Smt Shashikala R. Bohra 2nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Building Prop. Of M/s. Ferrocraft Enterprises A-98, Anand Nagar, Addl. MIDC Sayle Nagar, Kadakapada Ambernath (E), Mumbai -421506 Kalyan (W), Mumbai -421301 PAN: AFFPB9596Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sunil Makhija Assessee by : Department by Shri Sajay J. Shethi Date of Hearing : 23.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of the Learned…