CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

DCIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Della Technica Interior Design Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathadcit-6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Della Technica Interior Room No.504 Design Pvt.Ltd Aaykar Bhawan Rati Villa, Ground Floor M.K.Road Motibal Street Mumbai-400 020 Opp. Bhatia Hospital Tardeo, Sion(W) Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aabcd2765K (Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Forum Mehta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, Cit-Dr

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and ITAT, Mumbai order in case of assessee for AY 2009-10, has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO to 8% profit on alleged total bogus purchases from those parties. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. As re…

Chintamani'S Nx (Firm), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 18 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathachintamani’S Nx (Firm) Vs. Acit,Circle-18(2) 2 & 3, Radhe Gopal Indl. Piramal Chambers Estate Lalbaug Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 012 Dadar(W) Mumbai-400 028

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has upheld addition made by the ld. AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 25% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. We find that the Ld.…

Hariram R. Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has upheld addition made by the ld. AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 15% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. We find that the Ld. AO has made addition of…

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Arjunlal Sohnlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathaito- 20(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Arjunlal Sohanlal Jain Room No.119, 1St Floor (Huf) Piramal Chamber Prop. M/S Shree Light Craft Lalbaug, Parel Room No.10, Manuber Mantion Mumbai-400 012 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar(E) Mumbai-400 014 Pan/Gir No.Aabhj7788K (Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri. Akhtar Hussain Ansari – Jcit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per G. Manjunatha (A.M):

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO and direct the AO to allow further deduction towards gross profit already declared by the assessee. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. As rega…

M/S.D. Manish and Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and appeal filed by the revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathad.Manish & Co. Vs. Acit-19(1) Ec-3100, Bharat Diamond Matru Mandir Bourse, Bkc Complex Tardeo Road Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 051

…held that in case of purchases claims to have made from alleged hawala dealers, only profit element embedded in those purchases needs to be taxed, but not total purchase from those parties. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs Simith P.Sheth 356 ITR 451 had considered a similar issue and held that at the time of estimation of profit from alleged bogus purchases no uniform yardsticks could be adopted, but it depends upon facts of each case. The ITAT, Mumbai, in number of cases had considered an identical issue and depending upon facts of each case, directed the Ld.AO to estimate gross profit of 1…

M/S Jyoti Metal Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has upheld addition made by the ld. AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 6. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of 4 Jyoti Metal Corporation the authorities below along with case laws cited by both p…

ITO(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Electro Coats, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO to 12.50% profit on alleged total bogus purchases from those parties. The ld. CIT(A) has also deleted adhoc addition of various expenses of Rs. 30,000/- on the ground that the AO has not given any specific reason for making such disallowances. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. D…

ITO-30(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Inder Bachani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunatha

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has scaled down addition made by the ld. AO to 2% profit on alleged total purchases from those parties. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below along with case laws cited by both parties. As regards, addition made by the ld. AO towards…

M/S Valsons Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 2417/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) M/S Valsons Metal The Income Tax Officer 110, 1/19/Bharja Bhavan, Kika Ward 19(3)(5), Mumbai बनाम/ Street Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 Vs. 004 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaefv3006B अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R मिंजूनाथ जी, लेखा दस्य/ Per Manjunatha G, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai, Dated 28.02.2019 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Under Section 143 Sub Section 3 R W S 147 Of Valsons Metal; Ay 09-10 Income Tax Act Which Is Passed Against The Principal Of Natural Justice.

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), has sustained the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the Valsons Metal; AY 09-10 authorities below. We find that the Ld. AO has made 12.5% addition towards…

M/S Jay Jyoti Steel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), has sustained the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We have heard ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Ld. AO has made 12.5% addition towards al…

Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manjunatha G, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1647/Mum/2019 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand The Income Tax Officer Mutha Ward 19(1)(3) बनाम/ 59-A, Ardeshar Dady Street, Mumbai Near Alankar Cinema, Opp Vs. Sundar Transport, Mumbai (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aiupm0210G अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [In Short Cit(A)], Mumbai, Dated 19.09.2018 & It Pertains To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case In Law The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Of Reopening Of The Ita No..1647/Mum/2019 Shri Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha; Ay 10-11 Completed Assessment Under Section 147 Of The It Act 1961 & The Reason Assigned For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Provision Of Income Tax Act & Rules Made There Under.

…, no additions could be made on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), sustained the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under: “5. I have given my careful consideration to the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position for…

M/S Jupiter Metal, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 157/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Jupiter Metal The Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Office No. 34, 138, Income Tax (Appeals)-30 बिाम/ Rayram Bhana Bldg. 3 Rd Mumbai Vs. Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aakfm5736F अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.06.2020

…arket or open market from some other parties and saved VAT etc. According to Assessing Officer, the goods purchased from grey market is comparatively cheaper and therefore, relying on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) computed the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchase of ` 2,30,24,009/-. Thereby, the Assessing Officer added the profit from the above bogus purchases for an amount of `28,78,001/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the matter before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer has doubted the genuineness of purchases…

Nelco Steel (Prop Nemichand Kaluchanji Shah), Mumbai vs. CIT, Appeal-52, Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 176/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Nelco Steel Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Nemichand Kaluchandji Matru Mandir, Bldg, Nana Shah), 56/64, 1 St Floor, Room Chowk, Mumbai-400 007 फनाभ/ No.2, Naginbhai Gelabhai Jain Vs. Trust Bldg., Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aapps2838H अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.06.2020 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.06.2020

…ded in stock register. He noted that only the assessee obtained the bills from the above parties but purchased materials from grey market on a lower price. Therefore, applying the ratio of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) applied the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the total non-genuine purchases amounting to `81,11,218/-. Thereby, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit and made addition on non-genuine purchases at `10,13,902/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who only allowed one relief by directing the Assessing Officer to r…

Jayshree Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" Shri G.Manjunathaआअसं. 5922/मुं/2018 ("न. व.2011-12) M/S.Jayshree Metal, 82, Ganesh Bhavan, Adeshir Dady Street, Mumbai 400 004 Pan: Aabfj3949E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Ito – 19(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020

…artment vehemently supported the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the 3 Assessing Officer has estimated GP on bogus purchases in line with the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451(Guj). The ld. DR contended that the order of Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) are justified and reasonable. On merits the ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to substantiate genuineness of the purchases and suppliers. The assessee could neither produce the dealers from whom alleged goods were purchased, nor the assessee could produce vi…

Kba Infrastructure P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-10(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Kba Infrastructure P. Ltd., The A.C.I.T.-10(1)(2), 31, Jai Hind Cottage, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 20, Ville Parle (E), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400057 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadck8198B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj ( Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2020

…he Ld. CIT (A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of alleged bogus purchases determined by the AO by following the judgments of the various High Courts including the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) and the decisions of the various Benches of the Tribunal. The Ld. counsel further pointed out that since the Ld. CIT (A) has sustained the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases in quantum appeal on estimation basis, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Ld. counsel relying…

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1408/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2011-12) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1403/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Suresh Mehta Huf The Income Tax Officer C/O Manish Metals, 1002, Ward 19(3)(4) बिाम/ Tardeo Tower, 75-B, Tardeo 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir Road, Mumbai-400 004 Building, Grant Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaahm6719E अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Naren Kumar Mishra, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Bhora Ram, Sr. Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2020

…lls are in the form of saving VAT, saving of transportation charges and various taxes etc. the Assessing Officer has made addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases. In my opinion, the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 461 (Guj.) is applicable to the facts and disallowance of the appellant’s case. Here, the Hon’ble court has held that disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases from such hawala dealers will be justified based on the premise that the appellant have derived benefit to this extent based on his nature of business. Thus, the disallowance of purchase is uphel…

Shri Hasmukh J. Ruparelia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-22(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are partly

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1854/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1855/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2011-12) Shri Hasmukh J. Ruparelia The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 13, Hari Vallabh Co. Op Society, J.K. 22(1)(5), Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mehta Road, Green Street, Lalbaug, Parel, Vs. Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400 054 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpr1816P आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1856/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) Shri Kumar Hasmukh Ruparelia The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 13, Harivallabh Chsl, J.K. Mehta 22(1)(5), Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai- Lalbaug, Parel, Vs. 400 054 Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpr2188N अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.06.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.06.2020

…hases are not genuine purchases but the assessee’s sales are not doubted. Hence, he estimated the profit by applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5% in view of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the order of Assessing Officer except restricting the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% in the case of M/s Maulik Steel Corporation wherein the Assessing Officer has made addition of entire purchases of `27,98,636/-. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in Para 5.6 read as…

ACIT-28 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S A. S Electric Corporation, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1364/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S As Electric Income-Tax Ward 28(1), Corporation Room No.306, 3Rd Floor, 6 Th 216, Punit Chambers, Plot बिाम/ Tower, Vashi Railway Station No. 796C, Sector-18, Vs. Complex, Vashi, Vashi, Navi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aagfa3489D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Bhora Ram, Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By None : ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2020

…of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the A.O., relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451". (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not considering the latest Apex Court decision in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vs DCIT (769 OF 2017), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme AS Electric Corporation Court has confirmed 100% addition made on account of bogus purchases"? (3) The appella…

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Millenium Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील िं./ Ita No. 1363/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Millenium Enterprises Income Tax, Circle 28(2) C-5/2.3 C, Sector 5, Cbd Room No. 307, 3 Rd Floor, Tower Belapur, बिाम/ No.6, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 614 Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aakfm9589J अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Bhora Ram, Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2020

…the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the A.O., relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth, 356 ITR 451? 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of development of real estate properties. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation), who in turn received information from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that the assessee has made purchases from hawala parties, as listed in hawala dealers by the Maharashtra Sales T…

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Inka Engineers, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO 27(1)(4), M/s. Inka Engineers, Room No.409, Unit No.A 15A, 4th Floor, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate, Tower No.6, Vs. LBS Marg, Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Complex, Mumbai – 400 086 Vashi, PAN: AAAF12286A Navi Mumbai – 400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajesh K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The…