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

Raina Engineers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12 are allowed and appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Raina Engineers, The Asst. Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Panvel Circle, Wadala (West), Vs. Panvel Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, 604, Sunder Tower, Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Off. T.J. Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Opp. Swan Mills, Sewari, Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai Dist: Raigad. Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, A-8, C-6, Sriram Industrial Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Estate, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Wadala (W), Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Dist: Raigad Pan: Aabfr6379J

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai PAN: AABFR6379J Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s Raina Engineers, The Asst. Commissioner of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Panvel Circle, Wadala (West), Vs. Panvel Mumbai - 400031 PAN: AABFR6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessme…

Shri Ramesh L. Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5856/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147

…ind that the 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 order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of 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: - “6.6 Ld. AO added an amount Rs. 76,93,151/-, being 25% of the total non-genuine purchases of Rs. 3,07,72,603/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the issue would boil down whether the 6 ITA.NO.5856/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2009-1…

The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rushabhdev Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 646/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.646/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito, Ward-3(1)(3) बिधम/ Rushabhdev Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 403 ‘B’ Wing, Vs. 509, Iscon Elegance, S. G. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. Highway, Satellite, Polytechnic College, Ahmedabad-380015. Amwabadi Ahmedabad- 380015. I.T.A. No.794/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rushabhdev Infra Project बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 403 ‘B’ Wing, Vs. 509, Iscon Elegance, S. G. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. Highway, Satellite, Polytechnic College, Ahmedabad-380015. Amwabadi Ahmedabad- 380015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcr2520Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vinod Tanwani (Sr. Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. S. Chhajed (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 05.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani (Sr. DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.646/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) ITO, Ward-3(1)(3) बिधम/ Rushabhdev Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, 403 ‘B’ Wing, Vs. 509, Iscon Elegance, S. G. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. Highway, Satellite, Polytechnic College, Ahmedabad-380015. Amwabadi Ahmedabad- 380015. I.T.A. No.794/Ahd/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rushabhdev Infra Project बिधम/ ITO, Ward-3(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, 403 ‘B’ Wing, Vs. 509, Iscon Elegance, S. G. Pratyaksh Kar Bh…

Milan Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 22 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5162/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5161/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5162/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Milan Kantilal Shah 203, Ami Villa Society, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar ……………. Appellant West Mumbai-400 086 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aamps9266N V/S The Income Tax Officer, …………….Respondent Ward 27(2)(3), 4Th Floor, Vashi Income Tax, / प्रत्यथााी Mumbai अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Dharmil Jhaveri, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dharmil Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 133(6)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री शमीम याहया लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM आयकर अपील िं/ ITA No. 5161/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील िं/ ITA No. 5162/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Mr. Milan Kantilal Shah 203, Ami Villa Society, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar ……………. Appellant West Mumbai-400 086 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /PAN – AAMPS9266N v/s The Income Tax Officer, …………….Respondent Ward 27(2)(3), 4th Floor, Vashi Incom…

Milan Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 27(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5161/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Dharmil Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 133(6)Section 147

Shri Kamleshkumar G Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5127/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 5127/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Kamleshkumar G Sanghvi M/S Kamlesh Steel & Engg. Co. Room No. 11, Mapkar Building, ……………. Appellant 1St Floor, 1St Panjarapole Land, / अपीलाथी Mumbai-400 004 स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Acaps6537N V/S The Income Tax Officer …………….Respondent Ward 19(2)(2) / प्रत्यथााी Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Mumbai-400 007, अपीलाथाी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar प्रत्यथाी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2019 A A D O S A / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR

Section 147

…essee Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 5.7 & 5.8 and by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “5.7 I am guided by the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Simit P. Sheth pronounced on 16.1.2013 in tax appeal No.5531 of 2012 wherein the Hon'ble Court have held that when the total sale is accepted by the AO, then the entire purchases cannot be added to the income of the app…

Pawankumar Nagraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2847/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…as enough for verification of purchases, came to conclusion that purchases remained unverifiable and accordingly rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3) of the Act. Thereafter, by following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 estimated the income on the bogus purchases at Rs.25,41,487/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restricting the addition to Rs.13,21,573/- being 6.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,03,31,893/- by observing that the VAT applicable to the assesse…

Income Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Nautica Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue, as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 7152/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarincome Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Room No.621, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Nautica Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. 1008, 10Th Floor, Ijmima Complex, Near Raheja Complex, New Link Road, Malad(West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaccn 0650Q ..... Respondent M/S. Nautica Clothing India Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaccn 0650Q Vs. Income Tax Officer 10(3)(1), Mumbai 400 020 ...... Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Assessee By : Shri Sambhav Shah Date Of Hearing : 17/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/09/2019

For Appellant: Shri Sambhav ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The first appellate authority after examining the facts and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Shah, 356 ITR 451(Guj) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchases made from hawala dealers. Against the findings of CIT(A), the Revenue, as well as, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik representing the Department submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The document…

ITO 31 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashok S. Vakharia HUF, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 3223/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

…n entries of bogus purchases transactions @ 12.5% out of purchase price accounted through bogus invoices have been upheld as the fair profit rate out of the bogus purchases by the Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals. 8.3.26 In the case of CIT v. Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)(HC), the Hon'ble High Court has upheld disallowance @12.5% of such purchases. 8.3.27 The appellant company is a trader in goods i.e. dealers in ferrous and non ferrous metals and under identical facts, the Hon'ble ITAT, Bombay Tribunal (H) has upheld disallowance @12.5% of such purchases in the decision date 4th April, 2017 in the case of R…

Shri Ashok Vakharia(HUF), 2009-10 vs. ITO Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2994/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69C

Aluwind Architectural Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1774/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Aluwind Architectural Private Limited Dcit-12(1)(1) 70C, Govt. Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Charkop, Hindustan Naka Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Near Reliance Energy, Kandivali Mumbai-400 067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca-5798-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harsh Kothari-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Udaya Jakke-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 16/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Jakke-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ssions opposed the additions made by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A), after due consideration of factual matrix and inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fabs Ltd. [355 ITR 290] & CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the impugned additions to 30% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It transpires that the revenue has not agitated the stand of Ld. first appellate authority any further. 4. The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paper-book, submitted that there was no basis for…

ITO WD 25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Yogesh M. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6080/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…e assessee. Thus, he observed, in such circumstances, the entire purchases cannot be considered for addition but the profit element embedded therein has to be added. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s Simit P. Sheth, [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the non–genuine purchases of ` 21,75,790. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the grounds raised and the observations of the Assessing Officer. He 4 Yogesh M. Modi also relied upon a number of case laws as submi…

ITO - WD- 32 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Bijal Nirish Masalia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6170/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nishit M. Gandhi-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

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

…es, however, not satisfied, Ld. AO disallowed the stated purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee. 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] & Bholanath Polyfabs Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] restricted the impugned addition to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee has not appealed any further. 3. Both the representative had advanced arguments which we have duly considered. 4. We are of the considered opinion t…

Fgb Manufacturing Co., Mumbai vs. ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4994/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4994/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Fgb Manufacturing Co. Income Tax Officer -Ward 27(1)(4) 209-C, Ghatkopar Indl. Estate Tower No.6, 412 बनाम/ Amrut Nagar, Lbs Marg Vashi Railway Station Complex Vs. Ghatkopar (West) Vashi Mumbai-400 086. Navi Mumbai-400 703. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaff-5076-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Shah-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 11/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 11/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

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

…king channels. However, not satisfied, the stated purchases were disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 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 addition to 27.32%, being Gross Profit rate reflected by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. It appears that the revenue is not in further appeal. 3. We have heard and considered the arguments of respective representatives. 4. We are of the considered opinion there could be no sale without actual…

ACIT - 27(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Bhagwati Interiors, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 143(3)

…re added to the income of the assessee. 3 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Bhagwati Interiors 2.3 The learned first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.64,002/- and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. 3. The respective representatives have advanced arguments, which we have duly considered. 4. We are of the considered opi…

ITO - 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dushyant U. Bhatia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4977/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Mallika Devendra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…1 A.Y.2009-10 Dushyant U Bhatia आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद" मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद"य के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4977/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income tax Officer-27(1)(4) Dushyant U. Bhatia Tower 6, 4th Floor बनाम/ B-14, Shivsagar CHS, 180 Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Garodia Nagar Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./…

ITO 27(1)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Dattakumar Pandharinath Jambavalikar, Mumbai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 4976/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

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

…cturing process. However, the assessee remained unable to produce the supplier which led the Ld. AO to disallow these purchases. The learned first appellate authority, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to the extent of GP Rate i.e. 21.87% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.40,067/- and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by Ld. DR before us. 3. We are of the consi…

ITO - 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshak Bharat Shah, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4975/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4975/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income Tax Officer-27(1)(4) Darshak Bharat Shah Tower 6, 4Th Floor बनाम/ A-6, 2Nd Floor, Mahavir Apartment Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (W) Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Mumbai-400 075. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps-7481-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Letter Dated 27/08/2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Letter dated 27/08/2019For Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…O worked A.Y.2009-10 Darshak Bharat Shah out peak of purchases at Rs.7.90 Lacs and added the same to the income of the assessee. The learned first appellate authority, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.3.47 Lacs and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by Ld. DR before us. 3. We are of the considered opinion there could b…

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshak Designer & Consultant, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4974/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to produce any of the suppliers. Resultantly, Ld. AO disallowed the purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee. The learned first appellate authority, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.1.25 Lacs and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by Ld. DR before us. 3. We are of the considered opinion there could b…

ITO - 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshan Arvind Sanghvi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4973/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4973/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income Tax Officer-27(1)(4) Darshan Arvind Sanghvi बनाम/ Tower 6, 4Th Floor 2/21, Kanji Mistry Building, Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Complex, 2, Sanghani Estate Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ancps-1673-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Ms. Radha Halbe-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…stated purchases were disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 2.3 The learned first appellate authority, after considering assessee’s submissions and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT V/s Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] restricted the addition to 12.5% of disputed purchases which came to Rs.1.01 Lacs and deleted the balance additions. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. It appears that the assessee is not in further appeal. 3. The respective representatives have advanced arguments, which we have duly considered. 4. We are of the considered op…