CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Shobhagadevi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blesmt Shobhagadevi Amritlal Jain V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 56/72, Room No. 6 Room No. 224, Matru Mandir Durgadevi Street, Asma Building Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Adlpj7969H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhaval Shah Department By : Shri Udaya B. Jakke

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt Shobhagadevi Amritlal Jain v. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 56/72, Room No. 6 Room No. 224, Matru Mandir Durgadevi Street, Asma Building Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai-400 004 PAN: ADLPJ7969H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhaval Shah Department by : Shri Udaya B. Jakke Date of Hearing : 30.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learn…

ITO-30(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Tejinderpalsingh Pritamsingh Bath, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bletejinderpalsingh Pritamsingh Bath Income Tax Officer – 30(3)(4) V. Monarch International R.No. 604, 6Th Floor, C-13 208, Vijay Industrial Estate Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Chincholi Bunder Link Road Bandra Kurla Complex Nr. Shakti Mill, Malad(W) Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan: Adopb6680J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Anoop Hiwase

…ingh Bath 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 the 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: - “5.2.1 with regard to Ground No.2 wherein the addition on account of the purchases are concerned, it is found that the AO has formed his view about the bogus nature of the purchases made by the appellant from M/s Sagar Enterpri…

Smt. Vijaylaxmi Ramesh Upadhyay, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

…estimating the profit @ 25% of the total sales. In our considered view, considering the facts of the present case and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and also considering the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of SMC in assessee’s own case and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by asse…

ACIT-26(2), Mumbai vs. Pukhraj T Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhan

…declared hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer estimated GP @ 25% on the alleged bogus purchases and thus, made addition of Rs.13,10,782/-. The CIT(A) after placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451(Guj) estimated GP @ 12.5% on bogus purchases. We are of the considered view that the order of CIT(A) is reasonable and justified, and hence, warrants no interference. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ITA No.148/Mum/2019 (A.Y.2011-12): 6. The facts in the assessment year 2011-12 are identical to the facts in the appe…

ACIT 27(2), Mumbai vs. Kalpesh P. Pujara, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7111/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7111/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) ACIT 27(2) Kalpesh P. Pujara, Room No. 420, 4th floor, 3/4/61, Kalptru Aura बिधम/ Tower No. 6, Vashi Phase-II, Peal Building, Opp- R. City Mall, LBS Railway Station Complex, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 703 Marg, Ghatkopar(w), Mumbai 400 086 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. ACWPP8054D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Drop Singh Meena, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवाईकीतारीख…

ITO 27 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jignesh R. Kapasi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanito 27(1)(5), Shri Jignesh R. Kapasi, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, 1, Hansa Apartment, 126/127, Vs. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Garodia Nagar, Ghatkopar Station Complex, Vashi, (E), Mumbai-400077. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Aabpk2503R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi (Dr) Respondent By : Shri M.R. Tanna (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

…vidence regarding the transportation of gods was filed. The Assessing Officer after considering the material before him and report of investigation wing and sales tax department concluded and by following the decision of Gujarat High Court in Simith P Sheth 356 ITR 451(Guj) took his view that it would be just fair and proper to make addition of profit element embedded in such bogus purchase. The assessing officer accepted the confirmation filed by Dharmi Enterprises and allowed the purchases of Rs. 39,37,066/-. The assessing officer disallowed 12.5% of the aggregate of total purchases of remaining eight parti…

ITO, 27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abdullah Abdulkarim Shaikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…. 5. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition @ 27.46% being average GP of the last three years by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat – HC). 6. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material on record and impugned order, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has 3 Shri Abdullah Abdulkarim Shaikh passed a very reasoned and speaking order which does not require any interference from our side. 7. We also note that the assessee has not challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherei…

Omprakash Hukmaram Vishnoi, Mumbai vs. ITO, 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

…tisfied with the explanation of the assessee and rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act and applied a GP of 12.5% on the said bogus purchases by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat – HC). 4. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to apply a rate which is calculated by reducing the GP declared by the assessee during the year from 12.5% applied by the AO. 5. In this case, since the assessee is a petty trader dealing in ferrous and non ferrous metal ite…

ITO, 29(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sashikant B Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

…assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act dated 29.01.2015 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.63 of 2012 dated 23.10.2012 and CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat – HC). 5. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the addition to 6% instead of 12.5% of the bogus purchases by holding that assessee is trading in iron and steel and it is 3 Shri Sashikant B. Gupta reasonable to apply a rate of 6% to tax the profit element i…

ITO, 27(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vipul Premchand Shah, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO 27(3)(5), Shri Vipul Premchand R.No.428, 4th Floor, Shah, Tower No.06, 1/5, Kandhari Colony, Vs. Vashi, 2nd Floor, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071 PAN: AACPS 6641P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO 27(3)(5), Vinit P. Shah (HUF), R.No.428, 4th Floor, 2/4, Kandhari Colony, Tower No.06, 2nd Floor, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Chembur, Complex, Mumbai – 400 071 Vashi, PAN: AAAHV4423J Navi Mumbai-400 703 (Appe…

ITO 26(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Pankaj Kapurchand Sanghavi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaito-26(2)(4) Vs. Pankaj Kapurchand Room No.511, 5Th Floor Sanghvi C-11, Bkc Complex Room No.18, 44 Bandra(East) Nagdevi Street Mumbai-400 051 Mandavi,Mumbai-400 003 Pan/Gir No.Aijps7241Q (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…, 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) scaled down addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 8.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 10. Ordinarily once purchase is held bogus, entire purchase is to be disallowed as a book entry having effect of reducing profit is created solely for reducing nor…

M/S Karteek Ferromet Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO- 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.967 & 968/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Karteek Ferromet Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito-5(2)(2) 2Nd Floor, Plot No.162 Room No.567, 19, Ganjawala Building Aaykar Bhawan M.G.Mahimtura Marg M.K.Road Kumbharwada Mumbai-400 020 Girgaon Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aadck4241K (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…, 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 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:- 8.13 In The present case, The adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order. To reach [he finality, were disclosed to the assessee. However, the appe…

Vipul P Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathasl.

…rd party. The assessee had also challenged reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 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 AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. The ld. CIT(A) has also rejected legal ground taken by the assessee challening reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 5. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through…

Shri. Jitendra S Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee and appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathajitendra S.Patel Vs. Ito-27(1)(5) 4Th Floor, Tower No.6 202, Jolly Apartment Co-Op Hsg.Soc, Kiral Road Vashi Railway Complex, Ghatkopar (W) Vashi, Mumbai-400 086 Navi Mumbai-400703

…, 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 AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 8% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- Jitendra S. Patel 6.1 Ground No.1 of the appeal is against addition of Rs 8,73,149/- as expenditure u's.69C of the Act As per the investigations carried out by th…

Harshad Fulchand Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.687 & 688/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Harshad Fulchand Sheth Vs. Ito-19(1)(5) Room No.215, 2Nd Floor 12-A Manek, 11 L.D. Ruparel Marg Matru Mandir Malabar Hill Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 006 Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No.Aahps4577P (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…, 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 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:- 6.3.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the total purchases shown to be made from the aforesaid party could not be held to be entirely bogus. It need…

ITO-28(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Intercer Engg. Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaito-28(1)(4) Vs. Intercer Engg. Works Room No.330, 3Rd Floor 311, Midc, Ttc Thane Tower No.6, Belapur Road, Rabale, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 701 Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No.Aaafi5054L (Appellant) .. Respondent)

…ade on the basis of information received from third party. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee 3 Intercer Engg.Works and also, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) scaled down 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:- 6.1 Grounds NO.1 & 2 of the appeal are against addition of 100% of alleged bogus purchase as income of the appellant. As per the investigations carried out by the…

ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri. Nagib Hussainy Hussain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(2)(4) Shri Nagib Husainy R.No. 123B, 1St Floor, Hussain, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Flat No. 8, 2Nd Floor, Md Churchgate, Mumbai. Bldg, 56, Nathlal Parekh Marg, Wood House Road, Coloba, Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaph0986J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02 /2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai, Dated 20/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…, 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) scaled down addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 15% 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. We find that the Ld. AO has made 100% addition on alleged bogus pur…

ITO27(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Ms Neeta Rajesh Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

…, 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 AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 16.30% gross profit on total purchases from those parties. 565/Mum/2019. Ms. Neeta Rajesh Gandhi. 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. We find that the Ld.…

ITO-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Akshay Ramprasad Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 17(1)(1) Mr. Akshay Ramprasad R.No. 115, 1St Floor, Agarwal, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 41, Santam Apartment, 93, Churchgate, Mumbai. Cufee Parade, Mumbai. Pin - 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpa1819G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-55, Mumbai, Dated 19/11/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition

…, 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) scaled down addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 8% 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. We find that the Ld. AO has made additions of 12.50% profit on alleg…

Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh M. Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaबनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Ito 19(3)(1) Shri. Rajesh M. Chauhan Matru Mandir, Room C/O Dodhia Industries, Vs. No. 202, Tardeo Road, 403, Dharam Palace, Mumbai. National Park, Shantivan, Pin – 400 007. Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400 066. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepc3596K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant Shri Sourabh Deshpande, Dr By : ""यथ" क" ओर None से/Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तारीख / / / / Date Of 03/02/2020 Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of 14/02/2020 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri G. Manjunatha- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-30, Mumbai, Dated 12/10/2018 & It Pertains To The A.Y 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…, 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 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 the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the Ld. AO has made 100% addition on alleged bo…