How many judgments cite CIT v. Simit P. Sheth?

1,465 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Simit P. Sheth come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 132, Section 131, Section 69C.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

356 ITR 451High Court2013#27 most cited

What is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth authority for?

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

1,465

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth · section 69C · bogus purchases · undisclosed income · addition on profit element · gross profit · net profit · reassessment · assessment procedure

Also reported as

38 Taxmann 385

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 132 Section 131 Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 69c section 131 section 133(6)reassessment proceedings undisclosed income search and seizure section 69 section 132 section 13 section 148 business section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

ACIT-22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. International Light & Craft, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5927/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, D.R

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

…with section 147 of the Act dated 19.03.2015. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to apply rate of 25% of the bogus purchases by following the decision of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by holding that only profit embedded in the bogus purchases can be brought to tax and not the entire purchases. 6. After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appellate 3 M/s. International Light & Craft order after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the ca…

Dy CIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Apex Softcell (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6272/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

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

…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…

Dy CIT-9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Apex Softcell (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6271/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

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

Pr. CIT- 9, Mumbai vs. Amrin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6238/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepr.Cit -9 V. M/S. Amrin Construction Pvt. Ltd., 8, Sagar Tower, Fair Deal Road {Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(2)} Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor Off. S.V.Road, Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai - 400102 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaeca3216B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Shri Brajendra Kumar

For Appellant: None

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

…of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases of ₹.3,54,863/-, while holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “6.1.26. In Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), the facts of the case were that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in finished fabrics. For the A.Y. 2005-06, the Assessing Officer hel…

Income Tax Officer 32 (3) (2), Mumbai vs. Yogesh D Dabhade, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of merit

ITA 5803/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5803/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-32(3)(2) Room No.734, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sheth

Section 133(6)

…edings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% . The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made fair and reasonable disallowance of 25% of total bogus purchases by placing reliance on the decision in the case Simit P. Seth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj). The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for reversing the finding CIT(A) and upholding addition made in assessment proceeding. 3. On the other hand, Shri Manish Sheth appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of Revenue. The ld. Authorized Representative of assessee s…

Aas Mohammed Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5985/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

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

…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 4 ITA.NO. 5985/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) AAS Mohammed Khan furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estim…

Shri Mahendranath Trivedi, Mumbai vs. JCIT - 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3068/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mahendranath Trivedi V. Jcit -18(2) 221, Bussa Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Parel Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapt6043J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Bharat Andhle

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle

Section 131Section 133(6)

…e finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451]. Simply because the parties were not produced the entire purchases cannot be added as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Eximp [216 Taxman.com 171]. However, at the same time keeping in view the nature of business 4 Shri Mahendranath Trivedi of the assessee and the fact that the assessee is making some local purchases wi…

ITO-28(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shirnivas Yankaiyya Gangapuram, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4760/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito-28(3)(2) Shrinivas Yankaiyya Gangapuram Room No.323, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower 2602, Bhumi Colossa, Sector 19 Vashi Railwasy Station Complex Vs. Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708 Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar MenonFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148

…as stated that 15% has already been disallowed in original assessment proceedings, therefore the further addition made by AO may be deleted. 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 and accordingly held that 12.5% of the purchases will be reasonable as profit on margin against the bogus purchases. Therefore, addition of 15% made in the original assessment is reasonable and there is no need of further addition…

Shri. Ratankumar Singhania, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7967/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7967/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ratankumar Singhania Ito-29(3)(1) बनाम/ 20, Suyog Industrial Estate Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W) Bandra East Vs. Mumbai-400 083 Mumbai-400 057 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahps-6826-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/06/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. The Assessee Challenges The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2019 Which Has Confirmed Addition Of 12.5% On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases As Made By Ld. Ao While Framing An Assessment U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 On 19/02/2015. The Assessee Also Challenges The Reassessment Proceedings On Legal Grounds.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…and bank statement evidencing payment to the supplier through banking channels. However, it failed to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of account. The Ld. AO, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth (2012; 356 ITR 451), estimated addition 12.5% against these purchases. The action of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us. 4. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that the assessee’s Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents.…

ITO-20(20)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Kamrulla Rehatulla Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5737/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Sign

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

…icer did 4 ITA.NO. 5737/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Kamrullah Rehmatulla Khan 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…

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Kumar Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5385/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 20(1)(4), Shri Deepak Kumar M. Jain R. No. 112, 1St Floor बिाम/ 3, Bhandari Street Piramal Chambers Kumbharwada Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai–400 012 Mumbai – 400 004 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Afzpj-4222-P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 144

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.5385/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO 20(1)(4), Shri Deepak Kumar M. Jain R. No. 112, 1st Floor बिाम/ 3, Bhandari Street Piramal Chambers Kumbharwada Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai–400 012 Mumbai – 400 004 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/GIR No. AFZPJ-4222-P…

ITO 32 (1)(6), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Horachand Desai, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7890/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7890/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 32(1)(6), Rajesh Hirachand Desai R. No. 703, 7Th Floor B-15, Baidyanath Dham बिाम/ Vs. 3Rd Floor, Tps-Iii, R. No. 05, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bandra East,Mumbai-400 051 Vazira Naka, Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpd-1684-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Ruchi Rathod, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi Rathod, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR

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

…against these purchases which resulted into an addition of Rs.14.48 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, considering catena of judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P.Sheth V/s CIT (2012; 356 ITR 451), restricted the additions to 12.5% and granted partial relief. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that the Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the suppliers was…

ITO 9 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Dharia Switchgear & Controls Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7732/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7732/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 9(3)(1), M/S Dharia Switchgear & R. No. 419, 4Th Floor Controls Pvt. Ltd. बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate, 38, Mistry Industrial Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Midc Andheri (East),Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-1380-M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/06/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…the purchase transactions but it failed to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of transactions. The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, considering catena of judicial decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P.Sheth V/s CIT (2012; 356 ITR 451), restricted the additions to 12.5% and granted partial relief. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that the Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the suppliers was…

ITO 24 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Devdas Manjayya Sherugar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6893/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6893/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-24(1)(5) Shri Devdas Manjayya Sehrugar बनाम/ 607, Piramal Chambers Gala No.9, Ark Ind. Premises Csl Jeejeebhoy Lane, Lalbaug Makwana Road, Andheri East Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan No. : Aayps-4717-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…u/s 40(A)(3) which represent purchases made from seven entities since the assessee would have made payment out of sources best known to him. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, considering the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P.Sheth V/s CIT (2012; 356 ITR 451), estimated the addition of 25% on aggregate purchases of Rs.52 Lacs. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. Going by the factual matrix as enumerated in the orders of lower authorities, we find that the Sales Turnover was not in doubt and the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. The payment to the supplier…

ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi vs. Madhur Jain, Delhi

In the result, the solitary ground of appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 176/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Acit, Madhur Jain, Vs. Circle-34(1), C-2/4, Community Centre- New Delhi I, Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Agrpj0254C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 143

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―E‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ACIT, Madhur Jain, Vs. Circle-34(1), C-2/4, Community Centre- New Delhi I, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi PAN: AGRPJ0254C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S. S. Negi, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Date of Hearing 07/04/2021 Date of pronouncement 27/05/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 34 (1), New Delhi for assessment year 2013 – 14 agai…

Maxell Diamond P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(3)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2649/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Maxell Diamond Pvt. Vs. Ito 5(2)(3) Ltd., Mumbai 320-A, Panchratna Opera House Mumbai-400004 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm8362J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 26/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2021

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…hich was heavily relied upon by the ld. AO for making the addition was never supplied to the assessee for its rebuttal. We find that the ld. CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451, had held that in respect of these type of ingenuine purchases, the assessee would have maximum saved only the VAT portion. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 3% as against 9% made by the ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved by this action, we find that only assessee is in appeal before us and Revenue has not preferred any appeal before us.…

Shri. Ravindra Bhaskar Deshmukh, Kalyan vs. Dy. CIT, Panvel

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1951/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1951 & 1952/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Ravindra Baskar बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Deshmukh L/H Neeta Ravindra Income Tax Panvel Circle, Vs. Deshmukh Panvel, Dist-Raigad. C/O Sh. Satyajit Zunjarrao 1003/2, Indraprastha Society, Adharwadi Chowk, Kalyan West-421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahcpd2323Gs (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.1951/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita Nos. 1951 & 1952/M/2019 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…y held that in case of bogus purchase the addition is liable to be justifiable to the extent of profit element. Some judgements are hereby mentioned below. (i) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC) (ii) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (iii) CIT Vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (iv) ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 (v) Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi Vs. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench „B‟ dt. 23.02.2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum)(Trib) (vi) Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434) (SC) 6. Taking into account, all the facts a…

ITO 33 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kunal Mahesh Patel, Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 6582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2021AY 2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…nce, keeping in view of any possibility of the revenue leakage in the present case, the disallowance of purchases of steel at 5% of the purchases would meet the end of justice. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Simith P Seth [2013(356 ITR 451)] and by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hariram Bhambani ITA No 313 of 2013. 8. Thus, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Simit P Seth supra and by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hariram Bhambani (supra), the disallowance of cost of purchases of steel is restricted to 5% of the purchases. The assessing officer…

ITO 33 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kunal Mahesh Patel, Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 6581/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2021AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Asst. CIT 31 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Manisha Construction Compnay, Mumbai

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

ITA 6452/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Gurbindar Singh, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…cisions and took a view dealt at Para 7.3.3 to 7.3.9 of the order. The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the Jurisdictional Honble High Court decision in the case of Pooja Paper Trading Co. Vs. ITO, (104 taxmann.com 95) and the decision of CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451) (Guj) where the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the disallowance @ 12.5% on such purchases. 6.1 The Ld.CIT(A) took a reasonable view that the only GP percentage has to be added and estimated the GP rate @ 12.5% and sustained the addition of Rs.1,17,688/-. The Ld.DR could not controvert the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) with any new cogent eviden…