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 367,282 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

Syed Mubarak Ali, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the years are partly allowed

ITA 309/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. L. Natarajan, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Marudhu Pandian, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…as of the opinion that assessee was accounting its unaccounted money as sales and such claim could not be entertained. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 and that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 154 ITR 148, while confirming the disallowances made for all the impugned assessment years. Nevertheless, for assessment year 2010-11, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the ld. Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee tha…

Ajay Trivedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 354/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Shri Ajay Trivedi, The Ito-2(1), B-106, Ridhi Sidhi Apartment, Room No. 9, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Navghar Road, Ashar I-T Park, Bhatander (East)- 401105 Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)- 400604 Pan: Acppt0186P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surji D. Chheda (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…eciate the fact that when sales have been duly accepted by AO along with quantitative & production records question of unaccounted purchases does not arise. The Ld. counsel further contended that the facts of the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451(Guj) are different from the facts of the present case, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is liable to be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that although the assessee has submitted details of sundry debtors and creditors, party wise purchases an…

Arvindkumar G. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Arvind Kumar G Shah, The Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), 59, 1St Floor, Khetwadi Lane, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400004 Mumbai - 400007 Vs. Pan: Ancps4341P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arvind Kumar G Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2018

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar G Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…allenged the same before the CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 6.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases by applying the ratio law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee has preferred this appeal by raising the following effective grounds:- 1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in (a) confirming addition of the extent of Rs. 738017/- which is made on a…

Big Imports and Gifts, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2220/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri H.S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Mitra, DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री रसमत कोचर लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAMIT KOCHAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2220/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Big Imports and Gifts The Asst. Commissioner of 5th Floor, ABM House, Near Income Tax, Circle 24(1), Vs. Shoppers Stop, Linking Road, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai- Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 400012 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAFFB9190D अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appella…

Dinesh R. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1876/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1876/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dinesh R. Shah (Legal बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(3)(2), Matru Heir Of Late Shri Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Rugnathmal A. Shah), 29, Mumbai-400007. Trimbak, Parshuram Street, 5Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aktps4623G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. N. Hemlatha (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Erred In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14SSection 234A

…rofit adopted by the AO @12,5% treating the same as the profit element embedded in such bogus purchases, which the appellant would have made from some unknown entities is correct or not. 7.7 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), Hon'ble Court was seized with the similar issue where the A.Q, had found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The AO, in that case added the ITA.NO.1876/M/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 entire amount of p…

ITO 27(3)(5), Navi Mumbai vs. Yogi Dye Chem Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 1228/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…d. The said purchase to the tune of Rs.2,97,42,916/-was not belonging to the assessee. Accordingly, the purchase to the extent of Rs.19,35,812/- is being treated as bogus. Considering the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)& Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj), the profit ratio to the extent of 12.5% embedded in the bogus purchase is required to be added to the income of the assessee. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase i.e., of Rs.19,35,812/- is quite justifiable…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Savitaben Patel, Ambernath

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5235/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5040/Mum/2015 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

…ments. We are in full agreement with the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee and according to me 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 recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5%. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. 12. One issue remains in the Revenue’s appeal is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of exhibition expense. For this Revenue has raised…

Savitaben Patel, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5040/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5040/Mum/2015 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan

…allenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases has been decided by the Tribunal sustaining the order of the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451], CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd., [355 ITR 498] and CIT v. Bhola Nath Poly Fab [355 ITR 290]. Therefore Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Tribunal the appeals of the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 may be considered for disposal. 3. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below…

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Ineriors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2427/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kba Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2429/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-10(1)(2), Mumbai M/S Kba Room No. 651, Aayakar Infrastructure Pvt. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd., 31, Jai Hind Mumbai-400020. Cottage Shivaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aadck8198B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…sessee had inflated its expenses by taking bogus bills of purchases from the hawala dealers. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of such purchases of Rs.4,57,20,006/-. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of such bogus purchases of Rs.4,57,20,006/- because the assessee was unable to substantiate before the AO its purchases from the suppliers…

Vikram N. Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia, D.R

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

…evidencing therein entries of the said purchases, therefore the AO came to the conclusion that assessee might have purchased from the grey market and finally after following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and in the case of Bholenath Poly Fab P. Ltd. 355 ITR 290, brought to tax the income @ 12.5% on the said alleged bogus purchases. 4 Shri Vikram N. Chandan 7. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee challenging the quantum addition on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO by reasoning that the assessee might ha…

Shri Bhuraram Virdaji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Bhuraram Virdaji Ito-19(1)(2) Choudhary (Proprietor Of M/S. Matru Mandir, I.T. Office Gaurav Steel), Office No. 126/8, Vs. Tardeo Road, Grant Road Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd (W), Mumbai-400007. Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Adwpc8702P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.8.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2017 For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

…mined the Gross Profit declared by assessee in earlier year or in subsequent Assessment Year. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition/disallowance of non-genuine purchases by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) on his observation, the only profit element embedded in such type of purchases. 7. We have noted that before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has furnished the Gross Profit margin for earlier and subsequent Assessment Year. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on such submission of the assessee. We have noted that in assessee’s brother…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Blockwell P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 616/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 616, 617& 618/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2009-10 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, DRFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Shah, AR

Section 143(3)

…Pahuja (2015) 54 taxmann.com 258. Therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances 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 29 I.T.A. No. 616, 617 & 618/Mum/2016 Blockwell Pvt. Ltd. Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material…

Everest Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4201/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai, considering facts of each case, has directed the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and this view was supported by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth vs CIT 356 ITR 451 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, after considering relevant facts has directed the AO to estimate net profit of 12.5%. In this case, facts are identical. Though the purchase from the said party is supported by primary evidence, the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the AO in the light of list of MVAT. Hence, we are of the…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Yogesh Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 4038/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Acit-19(3), M/S Yogesh Construction, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 1/11, 1St Floor, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, 25- Harharwala Building, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 164/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yogesh Construction, The Acit-19(3), 1/11, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 25- Harharwala Building, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. DR)

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

…ent Year: 2010-11 relying on the decision of ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 ITD 0428. The judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oil Cakes vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 and in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and also the order passed by the then CIT (A) in the assessee’s case for the A.Y. 2009-10. The revenue is in appeal against the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). 2. The revenue has raised the following effective grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. “Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i…

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Creative Peripherals & Distribution P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 680/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Creative Peripherals & Income Tax-5(1)(2), Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Office बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, No. 20, 2Nd Floor, 375/377, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Babu Building, Lamington Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Grand Road (E) Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccc5396G (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R

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

…e framing the assessment. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that even if the addition was liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit element, the same as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) should not have been less than 12.5% of the P a g e | 6 ITA No. 680/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Creative Peripherals & Distribution Pvt. Ltd. aggregate value of such bogus purchases. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the aut…

Dhiraj Narottam Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 4494/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhandhiraj Narottam Shah Ito-24(1)(4)/ 30(1)(3), 84, 2Nd Vijaykarwadi, S.V. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Road, Malad West, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-51. Pan: Anips0170J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…o substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of entire purchases. The ld. CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) and CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) restricted the addition @ 30% of the alleged bogus purchases on his observation that the mere facts that supplier’s name is appeared in the list of hawala dealers of sales tax department and that the assessee is unable to produce him does not mean that the purchases is bogus when the payments is made through cheques and the gross profit r…

Smt. Neeta Sanjay Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6700/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 271

…element embedded in such purchases has been taxed by the AO @ 12.5%. xv. Therefore the possible profit out of purchases made through non genuine parties has been estimated by the AO which is commensurate with the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court wherein disallowance on account of bogus purchases in the case of traders was sustained at 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. I 7 Neeta Sanjay Shah xvi. The AG has only added the profit element embedded in the aforesaid bogus purchases @12.5% which seems to lx: justified in view of the nature of the busine…

Kanade Anand Udyog P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3842/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…us purchases. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the vase of Vijay Protiens Ltd vs CIT 2015 TMI 828 (Gujarat HC) has held that in the case of bogus purchases, profit element embedded in such purchases can only be added. In yet another case, in Simit P Sheth 56 ITR 451 (Guj), the 11 ITA 3842/Mum/2016 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that no uniform yardstick can be adopted for estimation of net profit on bogus purchases. The co- ordinate benches of ITAT, in a number of cases have taken a consistent view and directed the assessing officers to estimate 12.5% to 15% profit on alleged bogus purchases, depending u…