CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5847/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Exchange, Kalbadevi, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.207/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5847/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(1) 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Exchange, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9904A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

…- from various parties. The notice was given to the assessee and the assessee failed to prove the ITA. No.5847/M/16 CO. No. 207/M/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 genuineness of the claim, therefore, by applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). The AO restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs.94,804,881/-. In appeal, the CIT(A) has deleted the said addition on the basis of this fact that the G.P. Ratio was not properly considered and the G.P. ratio of the last of the A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 comes to the 6.05% and for the current year the G.P…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Supreme Steel Impex, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…133(6) to these parties were retuned unserved. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition at 6.5% of the bogus purchases on the ground that in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had directed the addition to be made at 12.5% when the VAT rate was 10% and GP was taken at 2.5%. The Ld. 3 M/s. Supreme Steel Impex CIT(A) considered that in the present case the VAT rate is only 4% and thus restricted the addition to 6.5% on the same analogy. The Ld. CIT(A) held that it is only the part of…

Shri Amit L Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-27(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

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

…ng of the two suppliers. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee agitated the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 02/01/2018, wherein, inter- alia relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451], the estimation were restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. The stand of Ld. first appellate authority has given rise to cross-appeals before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Mehul Shah, drawing our attention to assessee’s financial statements submitted that the assessee procured goods only from these two…

Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amit B. Mody, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

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

…ing assessee’s submissions, factual matrix, documentary evidences etc. came to a conclusion that the rejection of books was not justified. At the same time, inter-alia, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290], Ld. first appellate authority reduced the estimated additions to 12.5% as against 25% made by Ld. AO. The stand of Ld. first appellate authority has given rise to cross-appeals before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Vimal Punmiya, drew our attention to the fact…

Dilip N. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7441/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dilip N. Thakkar, HUF Income Tax Officer-27(1)(1) बनाम/ 4t h Floor, Tower No.6 9/64, Gurudarshan Society Vashi Railway Station Complex, Jashuda Nagar, Ghatkopar Vs. Vashi. Navi Mumbai-400 086. Mumbai-400 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAEHD-0489-E (अपीलाथ"/Appel…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh M. Parmar, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Shri Mukesh Mavji Parmar, Room No. 704, C-11, B-16, Shreyas Industrial Estate, Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Nr. Jay Coach, Goregaon (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai - 400063 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaepp2846H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…72 ITR 619 (Bom) has held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. 10. In our considered view, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and…

Asian Chemtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

…1 Asian Chemtech Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.283/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asian Chemtech Pvt.Ltd. Income tax Officer-9(1)(4) बनाम Room No.226, 2nd Floor नाम नाम/ नाम 701, Symphony, Nehru Road Vile Parle (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 057. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAICA-1856-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"…

Nitesh Chunilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4) Vinayak Ray, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Nitesh Chunilal Shah Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(4) V. Jhaveri Metal, 40, Mittal Court, Mumbai Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aazps 4489 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Kusum Bansal

…ress the true profits and to reduce the tax liability. Therefore, an addition on account of a higher margin of profit would be fair and equitable. Hence, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) reported in 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) and also giving due consideration to the fact that the assesse has recorded such purchases in the books of account, I am of the considered opinion that, it would be just and fair, if profit element embedded in such purchases is taken as the profit earned from purchases shown to have been made from the above mentioned non-genuine parties. T…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, C-12, Row House No. 3, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Sheetal Nagar, Ashok Chakraborthy Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kandivali (East) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Afypm 7592 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Shah Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

…g that though assessee produced certain details but could not produce the parties, stock register, delivery challans, lorry receipt, transportation details etc., and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290], Assessing Officer estimated the profit element @12.5% from such unverifiable purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings of the…

Vega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharvega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-13(3)(2), Unit No.1108, Ii Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, A Wing, The Capital, G Block Churchgate, Plot, 70, Bharat Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Bandra (East),Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacd9989Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Circle-13(3)(2), Unit No.1108, II Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, A Wing, The Capital, G Block Churchgate, Plot, 70, Bharat Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Bandra (East),Mumbai-400051. PAN: AAACD9989Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR) Date of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appe…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…onsidering the submissions of the assessee and the material available on record concluded that the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is reasonable and the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] sustained the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases @12.5% observing as under: - “4 3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been claimed by the assessee the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same. As it is the claim of the…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…onsidering the submissions of the assessee and the material available on record concluded that the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is reasonable and the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] sustained the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases @12.5% observing as under: - “4 3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been claimed by the assessee the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the same. As it is the claim of the…

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm. of Income Tax - 10(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…018 AYs. 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/s Inter Carat Jeweller Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of income Tax 10(1)(1) 5.92%. On the basis of his aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simip P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) restricted the disallowance in the hands of the assessee to the extent of 12.5% of the aggregate value of the purchases which were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned concern viz. M/s Adi Impex. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Auth…

For Khamkar Transpower (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-10(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri G Manjunatha () M/S Khamkar Transpower Vs Ito-10(1)(4), Mumbai (India) Pvt Ltd, 1/305, Ananddham, Amboli Level Crossing, Andheri (E), Mumbai-69. Pan: Aadck0739Q Appellant Respondednt

…to settle the dispute by estimating certain percentage of income out of alleged bogus purchases. The co-ordinate benches of ITAT, Mumbai in a number of cases, by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has directed the AO to estimate net profit of 12% to 15% depending upon facts of each case. In this case, the assessee is into the business of manufacturing and trading of transformer spare parts. Therefore, considering the nature of business of the assessee and also the fact 8 ITA 6160/Mum/2017 that neither of the parties has conclusive…

Fazal Haque Mohammed Yunus Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee i

Bench: Sri G S Pannu, Vp & Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 70/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.117/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2009-10) स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 75/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.118/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2010-11)

…he learned Counsel for the assessee and according to us a profit rate of 15% will meet the end of justice in ITAs No. 117 & 118/Mum/2019 & SAs No. 70 & 75/Mum/2019 view of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Hence, we direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 15% of the bogus purchases and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 7. Similar are the facts in AY 2010-11 and hence, we direct the AO to apply profit rate at the rate of 15% on the bogus purchases. 8. The se…

Fazal Haque Mohammed Yunus Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both, the appeals of assessee i

Bench: Sri G S Pannu, Vp & Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 70/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.117/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2009-10) स्थधित आवेदन सुं./Sa No. 75/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.118/Mum/2019 For Ay: 2010-11)

…he learned Counsel for the assessee and according to us a profit rate of 15% will meet the end of justice in ITAs No. 117 & 118/Mum/2019 & SAs No. 70 & 75/Mum/2019 view of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Hence, we direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 15% of the bogus purchases and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 7. Similar are the facts in AY 2010-11 and hence, we direct the AO to apply profit rate at the rate of 15% on the bogus purchases. 8. The se…