CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

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

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

…The assessee could not produce these parties before the A.O. nor produce supporting documents such as delivery challan, transport receipts, etc. applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). The A.O. disallowed 12.5% of the impugned purchases. 5. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the assessing officer in making addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 7. Against above order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 3 8. We have…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Karan R. Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

…justice would be met by making addition of a reasonable percentage of such purchases in order to fulfill the gap of any revenue leakage in aforesaid circumstances. Following the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Simit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451 and M/s. Bholenath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs AO, 355 ITR 290, in the present case, 1 confirm addition to the extent of 12.5% of the alleged purchases of Rs.1,02,83,056/- from the impugned parties, i.e., Rs.12,85,382/- The appellant gets balance relief of Rs.89,97,674/- Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 13 I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum…

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…e CIT(A) is very high, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced in accordance with the business of the assessee. In support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (High Court) and the CIT Vs.Nikunj Eximpt Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 216 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) and other cases& Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT (A) in question. In the instant case, no doubt…

Shri Ravi Padmaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ravi Padmaram Choudhary Ito - 19(3)(1) 9/11, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Carpenter Matru Mandir, Tardeo Street, Near Goal Dewool, Vs. Road, Mumbai-40007. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Adspc4371R Appellant Respondent

…dhary merely evidence that purchases were made through account payee 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 serv…

Pravin B. Kanungo, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Pravin B. Kanungo Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5), Metal Chem India Matru Mandir C/O. Shop No.1, Ground Mumbai Floor, 10, Shivkutir 8Th Khetwadi Back Road Mumbai - 4 Pan/Gir No.Aaypk4480G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…rgins resulting from the grey market purchases. Therefore, after rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3), he estimated the additional GP @12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. While doing so, he placed his reliance on the judgement of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and M/s. Bholenath Poly Fab P.Ltd. 355 ITR 290. 3 Shri Pravin B Kanungo 5. By the impugned order CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of 5% after observing as under:- “3.3.6. It is seen that the total purchases of the appellant during the year are to the tune of Rs.4,97,90,088/- and the sales are to the tune of Rs.5,11,65,890/-. The purcha…

Sujeet Y.Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 30(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodshri Sujeet Y. Singh D C I T - 30(3) Shop No. 20A, Yashodham C-10, Bandra Kurla Complex Shopping Complex Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai, Centre Gen Ak, Goregaon (E) Mumbai Pan – Avsps5928G Appellant Respondent

…equired to be added, the learned A.R. submitted that the profit element of 30% estimated by the CIT(A) is on the higher side and accordingly prayed that it may be reduced. She submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 has sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5%. The learned D.R. submitted that 12.5% estimated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court included profit element of 2.5%. 7. Having heard the rival submission, we are of the view that the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases are required to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, as the…

ACIT- 16(1), Mumbai vs. Nabeel Ebrahim Abbas, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am

…the learned Departmental Representative and according to us an additional profit rate of 12.5% on aforesaid alleged bogus purchases 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 recompute the income after applying additional profit rate at the rate of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-09-2018. (रसमत कोचर / R…

SMC Indu (Jv), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Smc Indu (Jv) V. Acit – 18(2) 5Th Floor, Shop No. 9, Ground Kamana Chs Ltd., Building No. 1, Prabhadevi, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400 028 Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Ablfs 6305 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

…on certain purchases treated as unexplained expenditure. Assessing Officer did not doubt the sales made by the assessee from out of such purchases. Assessing Officer based on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished com…

Nikunj Yogesh Vora, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…gus purchase is wrong against the law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in 4 A.Y. 2011-12 the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451, without appreciating the facts that the facts of the present case is distinguishable hence the addition to the extent of 12.5% is liable to be reduced/deleted in accordance with law as well as on seeing the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is specifically argued that the assessee is in the profession of Non- Ferrou Metals and in t…

Pushpak Auxichem P. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…ases (SLP (C) Nos. 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 5.9. 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 disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, ther…

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…ases (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 58 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (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 disallowance…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…ases (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 58 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd (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 disallowance…

Shantivijay Jewels Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

…oup are providing only 4 M/s. Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. accommodation entries and not actually supplying the goods. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and also in the case of Bholenath Poly Fab P. Ltd. (355 ITR 290) and has came to the conclusion that profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be assessed as income of the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be confirmed. 10. In the rejoinder, learned AR submitted that the facts…

ITO WD 2(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Ramchandra Tekwani, Ambernath

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Deepak Ramchand Teckwani, The Income Tax Officer, M/S Rajesh Hardware Store, Ward 2(1), Prop. Deepak R. Teckwani, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Shop No. 622, Near Ashok Talkies, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khandakpada, Ulhasnagar- 421003 Kalyan (West) - 421301 Pan: Aajpt4381Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Deepak Ramchandra Tekwani, Ward 2(1), Prop Of M/S Sai Tools, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Plot No. W/98, Midc (Additional), Wayale Nagar, Khandakpada, Vs. Ambernath - 421501 Kalyan (West) - 421301 Pan: Aajpt4381Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Neha Paranjpe (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2018

…he question arises as to whether the addition of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchases sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is reasonable or the same is on the higher side as contended by the Ld. counsel? 9. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. counsel that 25% of additi…

Deepak Ramchand Teckwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the cross appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Deepak Ramchand Teckwani, The Income Tax Officer, M/S Rajesh Hardware Store, Ward 2(1), Prop. Deepak R. Teckwani, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Shop No. 622, Near Ashok Talkies, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khandakpada, Ulhasnagar- 421003 Kalyan (West) - 421301 Pan: Aajpt4381Q (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Deepak Ramchandra Tekwani, Ward 2(1), Prop Of M/S Sai Tools, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Plot No. W/98, Midc (Additional), Wayale Nagar, Khandakpada, Vs. Ambernath - 421501 Kalyan (West) - 421301 Pan: Aajpt4381Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Neha Paranjpe (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/09/2018

…he question arises as to whether the addition of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchases sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is reasonable or the same is on the higher side as contended by the Ld. counsel? 9. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. counsel that 25% of additi…

Gheverchand Damji Haria, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(3), Mumbai

Accordingly the claim is quite justifiable hence liable to be allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

….300/M/2017 A.Y.2011-12 purchase is very high, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced in accordance with law. In support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (High Court) and the CIT Vs.Nikunj Eximpt Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 216 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) and other cases. However on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT (A) in question. In the instant case, no doubt after the receipt of the intimation from Sales Tax authorities…