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 367,514 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

Urvil Dhankumar Vakharia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shefali GargFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessee submits that while completing the assessment U/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element @12.5% of the bogus purchases relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] and completed the assessment. However, by way of revision the Ld. Pr.CIT directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ratio of N.K. Proteins Ltd., (supra). Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by the Assessing Officer U/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is not erroneou…

Universal Infraprojects, Mumbai vs. ITO 32 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2443/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessee submits that while completing the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element @25% of the bogus purchases relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] and completed the assessment. However, by way of revision the Ld.Pr.CIT directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and ratio of N.K. Proteins Ltd., (supra). Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that order passed by the Assessing Officer U/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is not erroneous…

ITO 19 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bipin Manakchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5728/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhera Ram

Section 143(1)Section 147

…hase @ 15% on such purchases. As could be seen, after considering the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the applicable VAT rate on such transaction is 4%. Further, he observed, in case of CIT v/s Simit P. Sheth, [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the non–genuine purchases on the basis of profit percentage and VAT. Applying the same logic, he has restricted the addition to 6.5% (4% VAT + 2.5% profit margin). In our view, the aforesaid decision of the learned Commissioner (…

ITO - 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh L. Jain (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 5667/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Shri Ramesh (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Room No 202, Vs. Prop. M/S. Ramdev Impex, Matrumandir, Tardeo Raod, 138/30, 3Rdkumbharwad, Mumbai. Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aajhr8745Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ich comes to Rs.76,93,151/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 06.07.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) restricted the disallowance made by the AO @ 25% to 12.5%. 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the assessee failed to file the complete details as called for by the AO u/s 142(1) of the Act and therefore, the AO has rightly estimated the profit @ 25% of the disputed purchases of Rs.3,07,72,603/- which comes t…

Shri Nimesh Jabarmal Chandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4261/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Nimesh Jabarmal Chandani Vs. Income Tax Officer Ground Floor, Shop No.91-95 19(2)(4) Kika Street, Gulalwadi Room No.210, Matru Mumbai – 400 004 Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai – 400 007 Pan/Gir No.Adcpj2850Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Praful L Vora Revenue By Shri Akthar H Ansari Date Of Hearing 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per: R.C. Sharma, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- 53, Mumbai Dated 16/04/2018 For A.Y.2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In This Appeal Assessee Is Aggrieved For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…“ no such addresses, left etc”. As the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness, AO estimated profit at 12.5% on such bogus purchases and added the same in assessee’s income after relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451. 4. By the impugned order CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO after relying on the decision of Gujarat High court in the case of Simit P Sheth. Assessee is in further appeal before him. 5. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. I have also deliberated on the various judicial pronounc…

M/S.Dia Diamond Link Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Jyothilakshmi Nayak

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 2636/MUM/2018 (A.Y:2009-10) M/s Dia Diamond Link Pvt. Ltd., v. DCIT – 12(2)(1) 10, Uma Smruti Building Aayakar Bhavan Carter Road No. 7 Mumbai Borivali (E), Mumbai - 400 066 PAN: AACCD6723E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Jyothilakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing : 25.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner…

Kunjbala N. Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6198/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhansmt.Kunjbala N.Parikh Income Tax Officer-(27)(2)(1) A-9, Green Land, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vallabhaug Lane, Ghatkopar (East) Railway Station Commercial Vs. Mumbai – 400 075 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan – Acwpp8038K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s the material/goods claimed by the assessee to have been purchased from the aforementioned party were duly accounted for in her sales, the A.O drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the aggregate value of the impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 41,01,088/-. Resultantly, the A.O made an addition of Rs.5,12,636/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.7,71,320/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with th…

ITO 33 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Vinod Chandiwala, Mumbai

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

ITA 5890/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-33(2)(4), Shri Nilesh Vinod Chandiwala, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Bldg. Vs. D-18, Lijjatgodvari Chs, M. G. No. C-12, Road, Near Vinayak Hospital, Pratyakshakarbhavan, Kandivali (W), Mumbai- Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra 400067. (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Acopc8067F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, DR

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

…ailed to co-relate the purchases and sales. By taking into account the findings of the Sales Tax Shri Nilesh Vinod Chandiwala 3 Department, Government of Maharashtra, the AO by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 365 ITR 451 estimated the profit @ 12.5% of the disputed purchases of Rs.54,55,749/- which comes to Rs.6,81,968/-. Thus, an addition of Rs.6,81,968/- was made by him. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 19.06.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance made by the AO at 1…

Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta (Proprietor: M/S.Rose Metals), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the assessee for Asst

ITA 4889/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

…T(A), after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, on analysis of information collected during the course of search and also by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT vs. 4 Manoj M. Mehta Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) scaled down estimation of profit from 12.50% to 6.50%. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- “5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position. 6. The appellant has raised only one ‘Ground of…

Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the assessee for Asst

ITA 4043/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

Mr. Virmabhai A Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shri Virmabhai A Patel Vs Ito-19(3)(5), Mumbai 159/6, Mistry Bldg 2Nd Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Akgpp3389B Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…led by the assessee; he observed that the intention of indulging in such activity is to suppress the true profits and to reduce the tax liability. Therefore, relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and also giving credence to the fact that assessee has recorded such purchases in the books of account, the assessing officer held that it would be fair and just to bring the profit element embedded in such purchases to tax. He, therefore, made addition of Rs.14,37,135/- being 12.5% of the amount 4 ITA 5955/Mum/2018 Virmabhai A Patel of a…

ITO - 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deven Jitendra Seth, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2010-11 and AY

ITA 5631/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-27(1)(4), Tower No. 6, M/S Deven Jitendra Seth, 4Th Floor, Room No. 409, Vs. 4/107, Mamta Building Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Goradia Nagar, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- 400075. Pan No. Agpps7985P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/11/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 148

…aid parties in spite of opportunity being given. Therefore, treating the purchases as non-genuine, the AO made an addition of Rs.10,41,961/-. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the disputed purchases of Rs.10,41,961/- which comes to Rs.1,30,246/-. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K. Protein Ltd. and submits that the order passed by the AO be affirmed. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on rec…

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dimple D. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 5629/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-27(1)(4), Dimple D. Shah (Huf), C-7 Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Room Vs. Apartment, Tilak Road, No. 409, Vashi Rly. Station Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077 Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Pan No. Aaehd0414P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Tanzil R. Padvekar, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2019 : 25/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil R. Padvekar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…de an addition of Rs.10,04,442/-. Dimple D. Shah (HUF) 3 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the disputed purchases of Rs.10,04,442/- which comes to Rs.1,25,555/-. 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relies on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.K. Protein Ltd. and submits that the order passed by the AO be confirmed. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for th…

DCIT - 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Bomby Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5598/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Dcit-4(3)(1), Mumbai Vs M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Bombay Ltd, 241-243, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan : Aaact4893P Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)

…n of Rs.1,68,820/- being 100% of such alleged bogus purchases. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of such alleged bogus purchases by following the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3 Tribhovandass Bhimji Zavari 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and the Ld. DR of the revenue. The learned departmental representative (Ld. DR) for the revenue submits that during the assessment assessee fail…

ITO - WD- 4 (1), Thane vs. Apollo Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5739/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 4(1) V. M/S. Apollo Industrial Corporation Room No. 3 Gala No. 14, Indo Industrial Estate Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Navghar Village, Plot No. 01 A-Wing, Road No. 16Z Vasai (E) - 401210 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aabfa2803Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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…

ITO 27 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vijay H. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6178/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari-Ld.DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…Assessing Officer before learned first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 05/07/2018 wherein Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 and CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451, restricted the impugned additions to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has not preferred any further appeal. 5. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of mater…

ITO 27(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atul V. Lotia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5731/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…itional benefit or profit earned on those purchases and not to disallow the entire purchases. Therefore, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 and CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451, the impugned additions were restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has not preferred any further appeal. 5. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the asses…

Bentex Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 6032/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Bentex Engineering Pvt. Dcit-14(1)(1) Ltd.,Khalai Village, Karol, Mumbai, Vidhyavihar (E), Mumbai 400086 Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacb4317N Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Asifa Khan (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/11/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa Khan (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P Kaushik (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Bentex Engineering Pvt. DCIT-14(1)(1) Ltd.,Khalai Village, Karol, Mumbai, Vidhyavihar (E), Mumbai 400086 Maharashtra. PAN: AAACB4317N Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Asifa Khan (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Kavita P Kaushik (DR) Date of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 14/11/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21 (for sho…

Income Tax Officer 22(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naran D Patel, Mumbai

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

ITA 5359/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(3)

…was upheld. In the present case, the ratio of Vijay Protein, a manufacturing concern cannot be applied since the appellant is a business concern doing trading. 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 circumstances of the appellant's case. Here, the Hon'ble Court has held that disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases from such hawala derived benefit to this extent based on his nature of business. Thus the disallowance of purchase is "upheld in principle but it should be based on ratio of Simit P. Seth 356 IT…

A/S Bro'S, Mumbai vs. ITO - 30(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 6041/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6041/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. A.S. Bro’S Ito -30(1)(1) बनाम/ B-1, Gautam Nagar, Datta Mandir Road Pratyakshkar Bhawan Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097. Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-5134-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ravindra Poojary-Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 16/10/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald-Ld.DR

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

…the purchases were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 4. The Learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Vijay Proteins Ltd. V/s CIT (58 Taxmann.com 44) and CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth (356 ITR 451) opined that profit embedded in such transactions was to be brought to tax. The estimation was done @30% and the balance additions were deleted. Aggrieved, the assessee is under appeal before us. 5. Upon careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the asse…