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 367,331 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

Kamal Prakash Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4415/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 133(6)

…rdingly, he took the view that profit embedded on such transactions of purchase shall alone be assessed as per decisions rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 and CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) estimated the profit at 30% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, he sustained the addition to the extent of 25.10 lakhs and granted relief for the remaining amount. 5. At the time of hearing, the learned AR furnished certain documents in the form of additional evidences to show that three parties namely M…

Eagle Construction Co., Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4099/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Eagle Construction Co., The Acit, Circle-1, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Behind : Chopra Court, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Ulhasnagar - 421003 Vs. Kalyan (W) - 421301 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Acit, Circle-1, M/S Eagle Construction Co., 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Behind : Chopra Court, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Ulhasnagar - 421003 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 133Section 143

…neness of purchases in question. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that addition of 20% of the total amount of questioned purchases sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side. 7. 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. Hence, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, only profit element is required to be added. Therefore, addition sustained…

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Eagle Construction Co, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Eagle Construction Co., The Acit, Circle-1, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Behind : Chopra Court, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Ulhasnagar - 421003 Vs. Kalyan (W) - 421301 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Acit, Circle-1, M/S Eagle Construction Co., 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Behind : Chopra Court, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Ulhasnagar - 421003 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 133Section 143

…neness of purchases in question. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that addition of 20% of the total amount of questioned purchases sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is on higher side. 7. 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. Hence, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, only profit element is required to be added. Therefore, addition sustained…

Mr.Nareshkumar Ramaji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1988/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1987/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1988/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Mr. Nareshkumar Ramaji Income Tax Officer, Ward Choudhary 19(2)(4), Piramal Chamber, Room No.8, Ground Floor, 58, Lal Bag, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Ragwala Building, Islampura Street, Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumba-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Adnpc6328D अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 4.7 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: - “4.7 Even if materials have been purchases, they are not purchased from the grey market, the appellant would have benefitted by the savings of taxes. Therefore, in fact and circumstances of the case, in this particular case, it is considered most appropriate to adopt 12.5% profit which can take care of rotation of…

Mr.Nareshkumar Ramaji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1987/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1987/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1988/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Mr. Nareshkumar Ramaji Income Tax Officer, Ward Choudhary 19(2)(4), Piramal Chamber, Room No.8, Ground Floor, 58, Lal Bag, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Ragwala Building, Islampura Street, Nanubhai Desai Road, Mumba-400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Adnpc6328D अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 4.7 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: - “4.7 Even if materials have been purchases, they are not purchased from the grey market, the appellant would have benefitted by the savings of taxes. Therefore, in fact and circumstances of the case, in this particular case, it is considered most appropriate to adopt 12.5% profit which can take care of rotation of…

Sirajuddin Mujibullah Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 611/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 18% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 12 by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) & others by observing as under: - “12. In the case of the assessee the goods purchased from M/s Nageshwar Enterprises and MIs National Trading Co were lying in stock of the assessee as at 31.03.2009. In order to ascertain that the goods had actually been consumed in the next financial year the assessee was directed to prove the consumption…

M/S.Datta Digambar Automobiles, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…me of the assessee. Aggrieved, 4 assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 5.3 (xvi to xvii) 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: - “5.3 xvi. Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the recent judgments quoted as above, it is observed that the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated cannot be ruled out and therefore in view of the above, the AC has not treated the entire purchases from the aforesaid parties t…

V. K. Trading Co., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 26(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 131/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 130/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 131/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) V.K. Trading Co. The Income Tax Officer ¼, Om Trimurti Chs, Sion 26(3)(4), 5Th Floor, C-11, Trombay Road, Chunabhatti, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 022 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaffv2666L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Ashok J. Patil, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ded in the aforesaid bogus purchases @ 12.5% seems to be justified in view of the nature of the business of the appellant which is over & above the profit declared by the appellant & is found commensurate with the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sink P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (GuJ.) of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court wherein disallowance on account of bogus purchases was sustained at 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, the profit @12.5% on the unexplained purchases of Rs 64,84,951/- worked out at Rs. 8,10,619/- is found to be justifiable and is confirmed to that extent. xvi. Therefore, the above grounds of a…

V. K. Trading Co., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 26(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 130/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 130/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 131/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) V.K. Trading Co. The Income Tax Officer ¼, Om Trimurti Chs, Sion 26(3)(4), 5Th Floor, C-11, Trombay Road, Chunabhatti, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 022 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaffv2666L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Ashok J. Patil, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. Patil, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ded in the aforesaid bogus purchases @ 12.5% seems to be justified in view of the nature of the business of the appellant which is over & above the profit declared by the appellant & is found commensurate with the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Sink P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (GuJ.) of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court wherein disallowance on account of bogus purchases was sustained at 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, the profit @12.5% on the unexplained purchases of Rs 64,84,951/- worked out at Rs. 8,10,619/- is found to be justifiable and is confirmed to that extent. xvi. Therefore, the above grounds of a…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, VICE PRESIDENT, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1485 & 1486/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11& 2011-12 M/s Solo Hardware Private ACIT, Limited, Circle-5(3)(2), बनाम/ Shop No.03, Shastri Nagar, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Pant Nagar Police M. K. Road, Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400075 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AAJCS0760R None "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Chaudhary…

India Diamond Tools, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Thane

In the result ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 217/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…o the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 8 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: - “8. 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. 4,92,627/- from various parties which appeared in the list of Sales-tax Department who had indulged in Hawala transactions i.e. pr…

India Diamond Tools, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Thane

In the result ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…o the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 8 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: - “8. 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. 4,92,627/- from various parties which appeared in the list of Sales-tax Department who had indulged in Hawala transactions i.e. pr…

Kumud Metal Foundry, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1897/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh K. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in paras 8.3.23 & 8.3.24 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: - “8.3.23 The estimations of profit @ 125% to 25% of purchase price accounted through bogus invoices have been upheld as the fair profit embedded in accommodation entries of bogus purchases transactions by the Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals. The appellant company has traded in goods purchased from hàvala dealers and u…

Shri Bharat Hastimal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1833/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Bharat Hastimal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward- M/S Neelam Industries, 184, 19(1)(2) Trambak Parashuram Street, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. 6Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 007 400 004 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aljps1354H अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 6.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 6.11 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: - “6.11 The appellant made purchases from seven parties who are said to be hawala operators, who is indulged in providing bogus bills without supply of any material. Independent inquiries conducted revealed that no such party is existing in the given address. When asked to produce the party during the assessment proc…

Shri Suresh Amarlal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground of Appeal Nos

ITA 1673/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1673/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Shri Suresh Amarlal Mehta The Income Tax Officer, M/S Nelco Steel India 29, 2 Nd Ward 19(3)(4) Floor, Habib Bldg, 2 Nd Matru Mandir, Mumbai Vs. Panjrapole Lane, C.P. Tank Mumbai-400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Adbpm7463M अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Sk Bepari, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing in para 6.7 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: - “6.7 Even if materials have been purchased, they are not purchased form these parties and may be in cash from un-disclosed parties. By purchasing from the grey market, the appellant would have benefitted by the savings of taxes. Therefore, in fact and circumstances of the case, in this particular case, it is consid…

Mr.Girish H. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1404/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1404/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year:2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1405/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year:2010-11) Mr. Girish H. Jain The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Regent Steel & Ward-19(1)(3) Room No. 220, 2Nd Floor, Engineering & Co.) 22, Room No. 2, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 23/25/27, Guruchhaya Building, 1St Mumbai-400 007 Parsiwada, V.P. Road, Mumbai-400 004 Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) . स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No. Adspj9929L अपीलाथीकीओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Dinkle Hariya, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr ुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 17-10-2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2019

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…unproved purchase at Rs.7,34,130/- to the return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance 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 in para 6.6 as under: - “6.6 Even if materials have been purchased, they are not purchased from these parties and may be in cash from un-disclosed parties. By purchasing from the grey market, the appellant 4 | P a g e ITA No.1404 & 1405/MUM/2018 would have benefitted by the savings of taxes. Therefore, in fact and circumstanc…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ses (SLP (C) Nos. 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 7.9. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate Dinesh S. Jain disallowance was restricted to 12.5%.…

N.V. Graphics & Advertising P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 614/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(3)

…plied. We are in full agreement with the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee and according to us a profit rate of 12.5% will meet the end of justice in 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 re-compute the income by making addition @12.5% of these alleged bogus purchases. This issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 6. The second issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) by invoking the provisions…

Shri Rajendra Bhanwarlal Doshi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 835/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Rajendra Bhanwarlal Doshi Ito - 19(3)(1) 160/162, 2Nd Floor, Ganjawala Mumbai. Building, Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Vs. Marg, Near Goel Deval, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Admpd3397C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri (Dr)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Rajendra Bhanwarlal Doshi ITO - 19(3)(1) 160/162, 2nd Floor, Ganjawala Mumbai. Building, Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Vs. Marg, Near Goel Deval, Mumbai-400004. PAN: ADMPD3397C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri (DR) Date of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is directed a…

Shri Rajeshkumar P. Trivedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1129/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Rajeshkumar P. Trivedi Ito - 19(3)(1) 301, Amrut Nagar, Near Jain Matru Mandir, Room No. Mandir Road, Virar (W), Vs. 202, Tardeo Road, Thane, Mumbai-401303. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Acgpt6055H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…gh account payee 2 ITA No. 1129 Mum 2018-Shri Rajeshkumar P. Trivedi cheque, which is not conclusive proof when genuineness of transaction is in doubt. The Assessing Officer on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451 (Guj.) disallowed 12.5% of the alleged non-genuineness purchases being profit earned from such purchases. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was confirmed. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the no…