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 367,359 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 147Section 148Section 132Section 131Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 69csection 131section 133(6)reassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 69section 132section 13section 148businesssection 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

ITO 20 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhaval Ajit Thoda, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 20(1)(4) Shri Dhaval Ajit Thoda V. Room No. 112, 1St Floor Plot No. 441, Dayabhuvan Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Shradhanand Road Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Behind Mahila Ashram Matunga, Mumbai – 400019 Pan: Abopt2540H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following 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 ₹.2,66,448/-, while holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “4.3 Decision: I have considered the assessment order of A.O., submission of the appellant and the details filed. I find that the appellant had provided the A.O. with details of purchases made from Sumukh Corpo…

ITO 31(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sh. Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 31(3)(1) V. Shri Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav 307, 3Rd Floor Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-13 Room No. 408, 4Th Floor Shiv Sagar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex Kotkar Road, Goregoan (E) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai - 400063

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…idered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following various decisions including the decision of 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. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “7.12 I have considered the submission of the appellant. It is noticed that the AO has not relied on any statement given by the vendor and the AR has not brought on record any document to demonstrate that the appellant requeste…

ITO, 28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raj Tools Centre, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2557/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

…find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of 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. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2011-12 observed as under: - “Grounds No. 2 to 6 of the appeals are against addition of ₹.2,60,603/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementione…

ITO, 28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raj Tools Centre, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

…find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of 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. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2011-12 observed as under: - “Grounds No. 2 to 6 of the appeals are against addition of ₹.2,60,603/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementione…

ITO -28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raghubar Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2554/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 28(2)(5) V. M/S. Raghubar Engineers Room No. 308, 6Th Tower Plot No. 2, 34, Room No. 528 Vashi Railway Station Complex The Commodity Exchange Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Sector – 19, Vashi Navi Mumbai Pan: Aakfr6248P (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of 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. While holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “Grounds No. 3,4 & 5 of the appeal are against addition of ₹.5,49,371/-, as unexplained expenditure. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were found to be involved in g…

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sr Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1586/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1585/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1457/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1456/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…re not vulnerable for addition and only the element of profit as embedded in the relevant transactions should be considered for the purpose of addition. To arrive at this conclusion, we relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) ii. ITO vs Sumit Jaiswal (ITA No. 1541/Kol/2016 dtd. 14.02.2018 iii. CIT vs M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. (I.T. Appeal No. 1004 of 2016 dtd. 11.02.2019 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court).” 6. In order to estimate the element of profit embedded in the disputed transactions, the Ld. CIT(A) compared the gross profit and net profit rates declar…

ITO, 28(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Babasaheb Ashok Jagtap, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1424/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Navin GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147

…essee might have purchased the goods from grey market, as otherwise, in the absence of such purchases, the assessee could not have effected corresponding sales. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in CIT v/s Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), he proceeded to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the alleged non–genuine purchases by estimating @ 12.5% of such purchases. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputedly, since in response to the statutory notices issued 4 Shri Babasaheb Ashok Jagtap by the Assessing Offi…

ITO 28 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ketan Pratap Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2014/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. while holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2009-10 observed as under: - “6.1. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is against addition being 25% of the purchases of Rs. 2,38,51,717/-. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were found to…

ITO 28 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ketan Pratap Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2013/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. while holding so, the Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2009-10 observed as under: - “6.1. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is against addition being 25% of the purchases of Rs. 2,38,51,717/-. As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the aforementioned parties were found to…

ITO, 33(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Akshay Pramodrai Ghandhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3401/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(1) V. Shri Akshay Pramodrai Ghandhi Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 73-B Wing, 7Th Floor Kautilya Bhuvan Krishna, Behind Bhatia Sch. C-41 To C-43, G-Block S.V. Road, Kandivli (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 067 Pan: Admpg6689G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Arju Garodia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 144Section 147

…process the assessee may have made some additional profit. Therefore, the saving on account of VAT and other incidental charges made by the appellant on the said bogus purchases can be brought to tax as additional profit. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld estimation @ 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by AO is restricted to 12.5% of such purchases of Rs. 11,67,812, which comes to Rs.1,45,976. The AO is directed to modify the addition accordingly and the appellant gets part…

ITO, Ward- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Girijashankar Bishwamber Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross

ITA 7015/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 143(1)

…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 of the assessee and the fact that the assessee is making some local purchases without any transportation bill…

ITO, Ward- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Girijashankar Bishwamber Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross

ITA 7014/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 143(1)

…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 of the assessee and the fact that the assessee is making some local purchases without any transportation bill…

ITO-26(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Paresh Nagindas Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the 10

ITA 7/MUM/2019[2011-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2011-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. Paresh Nagindas Doshi Ward – 26(2)(4) B/6, 6Th Floor, Avanti Apartment Flank Road, Sion Room No. 511, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400022 C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaqpd2201G (Appellant) (Respondent) Co.No. 17/Mum/2020 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 07/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12)] Paresh Nagindas Doshi V. Income Tax Officer B/6, 6Th Floor, Avanti Apartment Ward – 26(2)(4) Flank Road, Sion Room No. 511, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400022 C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaqpd2201G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 40A(3)

…we find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases. While holding so the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “7.3.6 After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am in agreement with the opinion of the AO that the appellant did not purchase the material from the party mentioned in the sale bills. The appellant nor…

ITO 5 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Pranav Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3406/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer V. M/S. Pranav Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., 90, Arseshir Daday Street Ward – 5(2)(4) Near Dadachanji Building Room No. 566, Aayakar Bhavan C.P. Tank, Mumbai - 400004 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadcp1678H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Arju Garodia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…find that the Ld.CIT(A) considered this aspect of the matter elaborately with reference to the submissions of the assessee and the averments in the Assessment Order and following the decision of 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. While holding so the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “7.3.15 Nonetheless, from the 'facts recorded above in this case, it has emerged that the material in question was really received because without receiving such material the corresponding sales would not have been possible. How…

Vaghasiya Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. Cit-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2Nd Floor, Ae-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafv 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad-In-Law & Liable To Be Quashed 1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Issuing Notice U/S.263 Of The Act Based Upon The Proposal Received From Ito / Jt. Cit & Not By Suo-Moto Examination Of Records & Application Of Mind & Thus, The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Are Carried Out Upon The Directions Of Ito / Jt. Cit Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Sec. 263 Of The Act & Hence, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…precedents of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) and Babulal C. Bhurana vs. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251(Bom). The Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) wherein it has been held that additions on the basis of estimation are to be made where purchases were held to be made from the grey market. The Ld. A.R. submitted that unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law or against the facts of the case, the revisionary proceedings under section 263 by the Ld. PCIT is invalid and withou…