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 367,368 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 -WD- 3 (3)Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Murlidhar N. Iyengar, Dombivali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5427/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2010-11 :

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: Shri Vivek S. Dagonkar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…likelihood of the purchases being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such findings. In this process the appellant saved on the sales-tax/VAT and enhanced his profit by manipulating the purchases. On similar facts Smith P. Sheth 356 ITR 451, Gujarat, the courts have restricted addition of percentage basis. The appellant authorities have also stressed upon the reasonability of the profit shown by the purchaser while making any such disallowance. Keeping the GP of the assessee concern in mind and the facts of the case, it would be appropriate if the addition is restricted to 12.5% of…

ITO, Ward- 3 (5), Kalyan vs. Labco Fine Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5423/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaito, Ward-3(5) Vs. Labco Fine Chemicals 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Mahvir Prabhu Chowk Murbad Road Bazar Peth, Kalyan Kalyan(W)-421 301 Thane

Section 144Section 147

…rd party. The Ld.CIT(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. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) scaled down addition to 25% profit on alleged bogus purchases. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 7. I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, observations of the AO in the assessment order and the facts of the case. The appellant had shown purchases amounting to Rs 3,06.779 from Sandesh Sales Pvt. Ltd which ap…

M/S.Aquapure Agencies, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5408/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

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

…rd party. The Ld.CIT(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. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) scaled down estimation of profit from 25% to 20%. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 5.3 I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant's submissions As per the investigations carried out by the Sales Tax Authorities, the above mentioned party was found to be involved in giving accommodation entries only without ac…

Chhagnaram Gomaji Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5381/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Chhagnaram Gomaji Parmar, Ito - 19(1)(3) Room No. 39, 3Rd Floor, R.No. 223, Matru Mandir, Kesuri House 68/74, Vs. Tardeo, Sant Sena Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aowpp2668B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)

…dded in such transactions and restricted the disallowance to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simith P. Seth [356 ITR 451 (Guj.)]. 8. We have noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in MS pipe, MS round and Ms Sheets etc. The lower authority has not examined the Gross Profit (GP) or profitability already declared by the assessee on such non-genuine and other genuine purchases. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we…

ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai vs. Bharoomal & Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5356/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaacit,Circle-22(1) Vs. Bharoomal & Co. Room No.322, 3Rd Floor 1 & 2, Narsing Co-Op. Soc. 4Th Road, Khar (West) Income Tax Office Piramal Chambers,Lalbaug Mumbai-400 052 Parel, Mumbai-400 012

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd party. The Ld.CIT(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. Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) scaled down addition to 12.50% profit on alleged bogus purchases. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 5.6. In view of the above, it is an admitted fact that Sales Tax Department has conducted search and seizure operation and has established large number of companies/firms/partnership concerns as hawala dealers who are engaged…

ACIT - 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Sameer V. Juthani, Mumbai

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

ITA 5691/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sameer V. Juthani, Income Tax – 27(3), 3, Satyam Industrial Estate, R. No. 423, 4Th Floor, Off B.K.S.D. Marg, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Govandi, Deonar, Station, Vashi, Mumbai - 400088 Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aaapj8632K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…appellant gets a relief for the balance amount of Rs. 6,34,676/.” 7. The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5%, basically on the ground that the addition of total amount of bogus purchases is on much higher side. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is…

ITO - 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Kumar Jain & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-

ITA 5690/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), M/S Anil Kumar Jain & Co. Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 190/5283, Sanmati Pant Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Complex, Vashi, Vs. Mumbai - 400075 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aagfa5482L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (AR)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…g to Rs. 38,285/- of the so-called bogus purchases made by the Ld. AO. This ground is partly allowed.” 7. The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5%, basically on the ground that the addition of 25% is on higher side. In the case CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bas…

ITO 27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Manohar Darara, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 5689/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), Shri Ajay Manohar Darara, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, B-136, Ghatkopar Industrial Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Estate, Lbs Marg, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Abkpd4896Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 11.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Proprietor Of M/S Hycon Industries, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Office & School Furniture & Executive Chairs Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,86,598/-. Subsequently, It Came To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had Shown Purchases Amounting To Rs. 1,32,435/-/- From Two Bogus Parties Declared By The Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Who Used To Provide Accommodation Bills Without Supplying Any Goods. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Rs. 1,15,881/-. Thus the ground No. 1, 3 & 4 is partly allowed.” 8. The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5%, basically on the ground that the addition of total amount of bogus purchases is on much higher side. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is…

Shri Babulal B. Suthar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5674/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Babulal B. Suthar, The Ito – 19(1)(2), 26, Gr. Floor, Durgadevi Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Kumbharwada, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Pan: Aadps7629G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh N. Mehta (Ca) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh N. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148

…hases is not found to be acceptable. Ground Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the appeal are, therefore, dismissed.” 6. The Ld CIT(A) has sustained addition to 12.5%, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), in which the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is b…

Mafatlal H. Bothra HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5364/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.5364 & 5365/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ed purchases were liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit element embedded in making of such purchases. Accordingly, the A.O drawing support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), therein worked out the profit element involved in making of the aforesaid purchases @ 12.5% of the aggregate value of purchases of Rs.82,65,015/-. On the basis of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O confined the addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 10,33,127/- (12.5% of Rs.82,65,015/-). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matte…

Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklasaria, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 5343/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-20(2)-3, Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklesaria, R. No. 210, Piramal Chambers, 802/8, Hilla Tower, 2Nd Floor, Parel, S.S.R. Road, Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aadpa0360M (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 203/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5343/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Co No. 202/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5342/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklesaria, The Income Tax Officer-20(2)-3, 802/8, Hilla Tower, Mumbai S.S.R. Road, Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Pan: Aadpa0360M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Trivedi (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

…,86300/-). Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 8. The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5%, basically on the ground that the addition of total amount of bogus purchases is on much higher side. In the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition @12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) i…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Kalyan vs. Shri Kantilal M Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10,

ITA 5307/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-Wad3(3), Shri Kantilal M Jain, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 1, Ground Floor, Building 25, Murbad Road, Ganesh Krupa, P Dinkar Road, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dombivali Pan: Aatpj1458J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Assessee By : Shri N.A. Kulkarni (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri N.A. Kulkarni (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 133Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

…likelihood of the purchases being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such findings. In this process the appellant saved on the sales- tax/VAT and enhanced his profit by manipulating the purchases. On similar facts Smith P. Sheth 356 ITR 451, Gujarat, the courts have restricted addition of percentage basis. The appellate authorities have also stressed upon the reasonability of the profit shown by the purchaser while making any such disallowance. Keeping the GP of the assessee concern in mind and the facts of the case, it would be appropriate if the addition is restricted to 12.5% of…

ITO - 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5720/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehta-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…disputed purchases of Rs.15.28 Lacs which translated into disallowance of purchases to the extent of 30.43% approx. 3. The learned first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451 restricted the additions to 12.5% of disputed purchases as ITA Nos.5720-21/Mum/2018 Deepak Enterprises Assessment Years - 2009-10 & 2010-11 against 30.43% estimated by Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of ma…

ITO 19 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr. Mohammed A. Kathawala, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…n against disputed purchases. The learned first appellate authority, after due consideration of factual matrix and assessee’s submissions, estimated the additions @12.5% relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. After careful consideration of impugned order in the light of submissions advanced by revenue, we are of the considered opinion that there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The sales turnover achieved by the assessee ha…

ACIT- 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Rupo Jagasia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5712/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. K.Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Adjournment Declined
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…IT(A) opined that the correct approach would be to estimate the additional benefit or profit earned on these purchases and not to disallow the entire purchases. Finally, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451 and CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. ITA No.63 of 2012 23/10/2012, the impugned additions were restricted to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has accepted the verdict of Ld. first appellate authority. 4 Rajesh Rupo Jagasia Assessment Year-2010-11 5. After care…

Multiple Images, Mumbai vs. ITO -WD- 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5421/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…d to produce any of the suppliers for confirmation of transactions. Since the assessee failed to discharge the onus of substantiating the purchases, Ld. AO, inter-alia, relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451 and CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. ITA No.63 of 2012 23/10/2012, estimated the additions @25% of disputed purchases. The same resulted into an addition of Rs.5.59 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by learned first appellate authority, is under challenge before us. 3. After careful consideration of orde…

ITO WD- 1 (2), Thane vs. Machine & Controls, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5415/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…stimation. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the factual matrix and inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Sanjay Oil Cake 316 ITR 274, CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 and CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 restricted the additions to 20% of disputed purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. Undisputedly the assessee was in 4 Machine & Controls Assessmen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ten Constructions (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4911/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodacit-15(3)(1) Vs. Ten Constructions (India) 4Th Floor, Room No.451 Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Shop No. J-219, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 Tower No. 5, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400705

Section 143(3)Section 147

…nd held that in case 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 10 to 15% profit…

ITO - WD- 22 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deepak Navnitlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5358/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito 22(1)(2) Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah Room No. 313, Piramal (Prop. Of M/S Rajdeep Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Mumbai-400012 Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054. Pan: Aaeps9982R Appellant Respondent Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah Ito 22(1)(2) (Prop. Of M/S Rajdeep Room No. 313, Piramal Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400054. Pan: Aaeps9982R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar A. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri Haresh Purushottamdas Shah
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO 22(1)(2) Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah Room No. 313, Piramal (Prop. Of M/s Rajdeep Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Mumbai-400012 Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054. PAN: AAEPS9982R Appellant Respondent Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah ITO 22(1)(2) (Prop. Of M/s Rajdeep Room No. 313, Piramal Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400054. PAN: AAEPS9982R Appellant by : Shri Akhtar A. Ansari…

Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3580/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Realstone Exports Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer C-204, 2Nd Floor 11(1)(2), Vishal Apartments Aayakar Bhavan Taki Road, Tulinj M.K.Road, Nallasopara (E) Mumbai, Thane, Maharashtra – 400 020 Maharashtra – 401 209 Pan/Gir No. Aaccr8504K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 14Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 263

…Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. D.K.Garg reported in 404 ITR 757 b. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd., vs. DCIT reported in 292 CTR 354 c. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451. 3.2. We also find the ld. CIT while setting aside the order passed by the ld. AO had observed that the ld. AO had failed to carry out proper investigation of the issue relating to bogus purchases, thereby causing revenue loss to the department. 3.3. We find that the ld. AO had made proper enquiry with regard to the status of the assessee to be…