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 367,368 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 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

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S.Asian Hardware and Tools, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%. The ld. CIT(A) while restricting the disallowances relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Simith P. Seth (356 ITR 451). The ld. CIT(A) also concluded that assessee might have made the purchases from grey market, operating in the grey market leads to various savings on account of non-payments of various taxes by use of unaccounted money and on such purchases, when sales are not disputed, the 3 ITA No. 5332 & 5333 Mum 2018-M/s Asian Hardware and Tools reasona…

Sterling Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 6154/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.6154, 6155, 6156, 6157 & 6158/Mum/2016 (Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Sterling Jewels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit-5(3)(2) 208, A-Z Industrial Estate 460, Aaykar Bhawan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K.Road, Churchgate Lower Parel (W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs3316D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…he assessee and facts brought out by the AO, including information collected during search in case of Bhanwarlal Jain group and also by relied upon various case laws, including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarath High Court, in the case of Simith P. Sheth vs CIT 356 ITR 451 scaled down additions made by the Ld. AO towards alleged bogus purchases to 3% of such bogus purchases. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 4.2 I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. From the facts of the case it was noticed that the assessment originally was processed u/s 143(1) and there was n…

ITO - 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Chandulal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5729/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito-27(1)(1) Vs. Amit Chandulal Mehta 4Th Tower No.6, Floor, A-4/43A, Shantiniketan Roomno.406 Chs, Lbs Marg Vashi Railway Station Complex Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai-400 Vashi, Navi Mumbai 086

Section 143(3)Section 147

…fter considering relevant submission of the assessee and also, on analysis of information collected during the course of search in case of hawala dealers 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 additions towards alleged bogus purchases to 12.50% profit. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are as under:- 4 Co.No.217/Mum/2019 Amit Chandulal Mehta. 2.4 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 leg…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Mahendra B Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 143(3)Section 147

…not respond, in response to 133(6) notices. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarath High Court, in the case of Simith P. Sheth vs CIT 356 ITR 451 scaled down additions made by the Ld. AO to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The relevant findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- Mahendra B. Gandhi 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. 6…

ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. Shri Dilip Rajaram Kokate, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5305/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar A. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt (AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%. The ld. CIT(A) while restricting the disallowances relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Simith P. Seth (356 ITR 451). The ld. CIT(A) also concluded that assessee might have made the purchases from grey market, operating in the grey market leads to various savings on account of non-payments of various taxes by use of unaccounted money and on such purchases, when sales are not disputed, the reasonable disallowances should be considered to avoid the revenue lea…

ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. Shri Dinesh P. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5304/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri Dinesh P. Mehta (AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5%. The ld. CIT(A) while restricting the disallowances relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Simith P. Seth (356 ITR 451). The ld. CIT(A) also concluded that assessee might have made the purchases from grey market, operating in the grey market leads to various savings on account of non-payments of various taxes by use of unaccounted money and on such purchases, when sales are not disputed, the reasonable disallowances should be considered to avoid the revenue leak…

ITO 28(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Narayan Lokre (Prop. Anil Trading Co.), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5296/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito 28(1)(1) Anil Narayan Lokre Room No. 329, 3Rd Floor, (Prop. Anil Trading Co.), Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. 205, Bhagtani Enclave, Behind Station Complex, Vashi, Asian Paints, Off. L.B.S.Marg, Navi Mumbai-400705. Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078. Pan: Aappl1426L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar A. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: Ms. Lazari Oswal with Shri Nimesh Chottani (AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO 28(1)(1) Anil Narayan Lokre Room No. 329, 3rd Floor, (Prop. Anil Trading Co.), Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. 205, Bhagtani Enclave, Behind Station Complex, Vashi, Asian Paints, Off. L.B.S.Marg, Navi Mumbai-400705. Bhandup (W), Mumbai-400078. PAN: AAPPL1426L Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Akhtar A. Ansari (DR) Respondent by : Ms. Lazari Oswal with Shri Nimesh Chottani (AR) Date of Hearing : 01.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254…

Vinod H. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinod H. Sanghvi, Ito 19(3)(5), 2Nd Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp Matrumandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. (Ca) (Formerly Known As Mumbai-400007. D.C. Bothre& Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Afmps3101F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR

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

…d to do so. Further, the assessee could not file documents such as delivery challans, transport receipts, octroi receipt, receipt of weighbridge, excise gate pass, goods in-ward register etc. Therefore, relying on the decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), the AO estimated the profit @ 12.5% on the purchases of Rs.47,40,567/- which comes to Rs.5,92,571/-. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held : “6.6 In the appellant’s own case similar additions have been made by the Assessing Officers for earlier assessment years, i.e. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. On appeal to the ITAT, the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumb…

ITO - 33 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jayantkumar Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5899/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5899/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri Debang Shah, AR

Section 133(6)Section 148

…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…

ITO 33 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshad M. Padia, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5821/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Ito-33(1)(5), Shri Harshadrai M. Padia, C-12, 703, Pratyakshakar Khyati Hydraulics, 13, Bhavan, Bkc, Gopal Kunj, Sarojini Naidu Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpp1488Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 08.06.2018 & 11.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Since, Both The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, The Same Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Khyati Hydraulics Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The ITO-33(1)(5), Shri Harshadrai M. Padia, C-12, 703, Pratyakshakar Khyati Hydraulics, 13, Bhavan, BKC, Gopal Kunj, Sarojini Naidu Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 PAN: AABPP1488Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri C.S. Sharma (DR) Assessee by : None Date of Hearing: 24/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appeals have been filed by the revenue against t…

ITO 24 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Ravi Ramniklal Kothari, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5801/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR byFor Respondent: None

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

ACIT - 31 (1), Mumbai vs. Anupam Stationary Plaza, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5794/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5794/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri Jas Sanghavi, AR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

Pragaram J. Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5743/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pragaram J. Patel, The Ito 19(2)(5), 67/26, 2Nd Floor, Kholsawala Room No. 210, Building, Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aacpp1462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

…nus of proving genuineness of the transaction of purchase by adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj). The Ld. DR further submitted that Since the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition Assessment Year: 2010-11 considering the profit embedded in the questioned transaction, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT(A) to interfere with the same. 6. We have carefully gone through the relevant record including the cases relied upon by t…

ITO 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anam M. Pragji (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 5730/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), M/S Anam M Pargi Huf, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Shop No. 3-608, Punit Jyot, Room No. 406, Vashi Rly Station, Behind Vasant Prabhat Bldg., Complex, Vashi, Vs. V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aaaht8606F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)

Section 142Section 144Section 148

…unting to Rs. 7,658/- of the so called bogus purchases made by the Ld. AO.” 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. Assessment Year: 2009-10 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)(4), Mumbai vs. Dharmesh Babulal Patel, Mumbai

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

ITA 5724/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(4), Shri Dharmesh Babulal Patel, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 603, Sun Shine Arts, Room No. 409, Vashi Rly Station, Kale Guruji Marg, Dadar, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Mumbai - 400028 Navi Mumbai Pan: Ahhpp2409E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)

Section 142Section 144Section 148

…7. The Ld CIT(A) has restricted the addition to 12.5%, estimated by the AO basically on the ground that the addition of total amount of bogus purchases is on the higher side and not justified. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), has upheld the decision of the Assessment Year: 2009-10 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 based on…

Shri Shabbir Kutbuddin Attar, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5293/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Shabbir Kutbuddin Attar, The Ito 28(3)(2), B-402, 4Th Floor, Sawan Elegence, Vashi Income Tax Department Plot No. 68/69, Sector – 2A, Koparkhairne, Vs. Navi Mumbai - 400701 Pan: Ahcpa9351M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sabir M. Shaikh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Orders Dated 29.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Trader/Retailer In Various Hardware Tools & Equipments Used In Plants & Machinery, Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,30,436/-. Subsequently, In The Year 2016 The Ao Received Information From Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Through Dgit (Investigation) To The Effect That The Assessee During The Year Relevant To The Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sabir M. Shaikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…6. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition mainly on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases made from the six hawala parties . The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), while dealing with the similar issue, 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…

M/S.Valson Fabricators, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 5292/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Valsons Fabricators, The Ito-28(3)(4), Plot No. 85, Midc Thane Belapur Tower No. 6, Vashi Station Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400701 Vs. Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aacfv5519P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjape (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Boopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed 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’). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Dealing In Roll Forming Machinery & Dies Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,17,660/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, In The Year 2015 The Ao Received Information From Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Through Dgit (Investigation) To The Effect That The Assessee During The Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs. 8,41,933/- From Five Parties, Whose Were Listed As Hawala Dealers By The Sales Tax Department, Without Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjape (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi (DR)

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

…. The Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the addition mainly on the ground that the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proving the genuineness of the purchases made from the five hawala parties . The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj), while dealing with the similar issue, 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…

Laxman D Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3464/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

…ties and the same were unserved and returned back. For these reasons the Assessing Officer treated the purchases as non-genuine. However, the Assessing Officer keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from such purchases at 12.5%. 4. Assessee challenged the re-assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A) and on two grounds firstly the reopening of assessment and secondly estimation of profit element at 12.5% treating the purchases as bogus. Ld.CIT(A) as far as the re-opening…

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3463/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3462/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147