CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Paresh H. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5835/Mum/2017 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5836/Mum/2017 आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5837/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…Act. While passing the assessment orders, the AO , inter-alia, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451(Guj). I.T.A. No. 5835/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 5836/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 5837/Mum/2017 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 02-03-2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee carried the mater in appeal before the learned CIT-A who dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under, vide appellate order dated 15-06-2017:- “ 4.…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case a\nd in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the profit element embedded and suppressed in the alleged urchase were to the extent of 12.5% relying on decision in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 2013 38 Taxmann 385 (GUJ) without appreciating that, unlike in the case of Simit Sheth (Supra), there was no finding in the instant case of the assessee that the assessee had indeed purchased though not from the named parties but other parties from grey market.? 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.…

DCIT Cir.7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010 - 2011 Dcit Circle 7(3)(1) Pjl Clothing India Ltd., Mumbai बनाम/ Unit No.19, Shree Madhu Estate, Pandurang Budhakar Vs. Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2782R

…chases (SLP (C) Nos. 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.11. 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 22 PJL Clothing India Ltd. 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 t…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Mp Recycling Co P Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6385/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit-Cc-1(4) M/S. M.P. Recycling Co. Pvt. Ltd., Room No.902, Pratishta Bhavan, 9Th Floor, 51-53, A-Wing, Mittal Court, J.B. Marg, Vs. Old Cgo Bldg. Annexe, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aadcm 3153 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07/ 02/2018 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 09/08/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 47,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Ship Breaking & Is A Trader In Steel Items.It Also Produces Of Steel Pellets.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/ 09/ 2009.Pursuant To Search Proceedings,The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20/ 06/ 2012,Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,86,03,702/-.The Completed Assessment,On 27/03/2014, Determining Its Income At Rs.5,95,67,159 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Act.

…ed the various theories propounded by the judicial forums and referred to the cases of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited(IT Appeal No.5604 of 2010 dtd.17.12.2012),Babulal C Borana,M K Brothers(163 ITR 249),Bholanath Poly Fab (355 ITR 290),Simit P Sheth(356 ITR 451) and Rajeev G Kalathil(51taxmann.com 514).She further held that the AO had accepted the sales made by the assessee,that purchase sale correlation had not been controverted by the AO,that no discrepancy in the stock was pointed out, that the payments made for the purchases were routed through banking channels, that the extracts of the statements f…

Muhta Markfin (P) Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-5(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Muhta Markfin (P.) Limited I.T.O-5(2)(3), बिधम/ 59/61, 4Th Floor, Kumbharwaeda, Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor Prabhu Ram Mandir Marg, R. No. 566, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai- 20. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcm0146P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…e had benefited by purchasing the goods from certain unidentified parties at a rate lower than that at which the same was booked in its books of accounts, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and quantified such benefit/profit @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases of Rs.22,14,835/- and made a consequential addition of Rs.2,76,854/- in the hands of the assessee. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 6555/Mum/2017 AY: 2009-10 M/s Muhta Markfin (P) Limited Vs. ITO-5(2)(3) 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The asses…

Richi Jewel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -18(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Richi Jewel Ito Ward 18(3)(2), बिधम/ Room No. 24, 2Nd Floor, Ernes House, 6Th Floor, 48, Bihari Baug, 3Rd Floor, Nariman Point,Mumbai- Vs. Bhoiwada, 400021. Mumbai-400002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aakfr6536Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…(A) adverting to the quantification of the profit which the assessee would have generated from making the aforementioned purchases, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and confirmed the disallowance of 12.5% of the value of the bogus purchases made by the A.O. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee submitted that as the assessee had already accounted for a gross profit of…

Dinero Metals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5992/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dinero Metals Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward – 15(1) (4) C-Shop No. 16, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ 551 Shangrilla, P. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2923 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. C. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

…ances of the case. I hold that 12.5% disallowance out of bogus purchase would serve the end of justice. 6 Dinero Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO This proposition draws support from the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). Hence, I confirm the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 13. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.02.2018 (Shamim Yahya) लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 05.02.2018 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of t…

Alpa P. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 27(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5894/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Alpa P. Parekh I.T.O. Ward – 27(1)(1) A/401, Krishna Bldg., It Office, Vashi Railway Station बनाम/ Vasant Sagar Complex, Building, Navi Mumbai Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpp 8359 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

…ealings in the grey market give the assessee various savings at the expense of the exchequer. Hence, on the overall consideration of facts and circumstances and following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) I hold that a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchase would meet the end of justice. Accordingly, I modify the order's of authorities below and direct that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Since the issue has been decided keeping in mind the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court…

Ambernath Steel Tube and Sanitary Store, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5858/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Ambernath Steel Tube & Ito, Ward 2(1), बनाम/ Sanitary Store Kalyan, Partner – Shri Vimal Adhia Dist. Thane Vs. Station Road, Ambarnath (W)-421 501 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfa 7639 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 03.07.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009- 10. 2. The First Issue Raised Pertains To The Validity Of Reopening. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Submitted That He Shall Not Be Pressing For This Ground. Accordingly, This Ground Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…rcumstances of the case the 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases 4 M/s. Ambernath Steel Tube and Sanitary Store vs. ITO meets the ends of justice. This is following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451, followed by the ITAT Mumbai Benches in a number of cases. Accordingly, I modify the order of the authorities below and direct that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 9. The last issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding 20% disallowance of expenses. On…

Shakeeluddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Thane

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 5118 To 5120/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Shri Shakeeluddin Siddiqui Ito-2(4), Room No. 29, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, 603, Gulmohar Co-Op. Hsg. Society, बनाम/ Saraswati Tower, Naya Nagar, Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Ganga Complex, 60 Feet Road, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane-400 107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajwps 5271 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.05.2017 & Pertain To The Aforesaid Three Assessment Years.

…ealings in the grey market give the assessee various savings at the expense of the exchequer. Hence, on the overall consideration of facts and circumstances and following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) I hold that a disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchase would meet the end of justice. Accordingly, I modify the order's of authorities below and direct that the disallowance in this case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. Since the issue has been decided keeping in Shri Shakeeluddin Siddiqui vs. ITO mind the Hon’ble Su…

Rapar Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4354/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rapar Trading Private Limited Ito, Ward 8(1)(1), बनाम/ 68/70, Room No. 1, Darjiwala Bldg., Aayakar Bhavan, V.V. Chandan Street, Vadgadi, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr 4677 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 21.03.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Appeals 14, Mumbai, Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit (A), Has Erred In Law In Confirming 100% Addition In 2 Rapar Trading Private Limited Vs. Ito Respect Of Hawala Purchases Of Rs.35,27,193/-. The Said Addition May Please Be Deleted. 2. Without Prejudice To The Above, The Addition If Any In Respect Of Such Purchases May Be Restricted To Gross Profit Only.

…situation, in my considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case the 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the ends of justice. This is following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451, followed by the ITAT Mumbai Benches in a number of cases. 8. Accordingly, I modify the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct that the disallowance be limited to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 9. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.…

Vikram Parasmal Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.837/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Vikram Parasmal Doshi Income Tax Officer, Ward- 37, Durgadevi Street, बिधम/ 19(3)(5), Matru Mandir, Near 23Rd Kumbharwada 2Nd Floor, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400007 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aghpd2131A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

…ed in non-genuine transactions with the intent to suppress its true profits and to reduce the tax liability. The A.O in the backdrop of his aforesaid observations relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and keeping in view the request of the assessee for estimating its gross profit at a reasonable rate, estimated the profits involved in making of the aforesaid bogus purchases by the assessee @ 12.5% of the total non genuine purchase of Rs. 1,79,21,269/- and made an addition of Rs.22,40,160/- in the hands of the assessee. P a g e | 6 ITA N…

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. Acit, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacv2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.10. 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, the…

Prankit Exports, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1441/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बिाम/ Prankit Exports, Ito 25(3)(2) 301 Shviling Apartments, Mumbai Juhu 10T H Road, V. Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400049 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaafp2359K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…quiry as to whether the payments made by the assessee had been actually received by the apparent sellers. Hence the estimate made by the appellate authorities did not warrant interference. 6.8 Recently in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) the Hon'ble Court has given a finding that estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted and finally confirmed the action of the ITAT in determining 12.5% of the bogus purchases as the profit embedded in such transaction. The head note is as under: Income from…

Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shailesh R. Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodthe Income Tax Officer 25(1)(2), Room No.403,C-10, Bldg., Bkc , Bandra(E), Mumbai 400051 ..... Appellant

…1,015/- as unexplained income. The CIT(A) has since affirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer in principle, but on the quantification of the 3 addition, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451(Guj). The CIT(A) noted that even if the stated purchases are found to be unexplained, but there was no material to show that the corresponding sales shown by the assessee were also bogus. According to the CIT(A) in such a case the material must have been purchased by the assessee though not from the stated parties because otherwise the correspond…

Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd vs CIT (2015) TMI 828 (Guj High Court) under similar set of facts has upheld estimation of net profit of 15% on bogus purchases. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 56 ITR 451 (Guj) has held that no uniform yardstick could be applied to estimate net profit because of various nature of risk involved in various types of business and net profit depends upon facts of each case. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in a number of cases have taken a consistent view and estimated net profit of 12.5% on bogus purchases. The sum and substan…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Scientific Devices (Bombay) P.Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are partly allowed and appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd vs CIT (2015) TMI 828 (Guj High Court) under similar set of facts has upheld estimation of net profit of 15% on bogus purchases. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 56 ITR 451 (Guj) has held that no uniform yardstick could be applied to estimate net profit because of various nature of risk involved in various types of business and net profit depends upon facts of each case. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in a number of cases have taken a consistent view and estimated net profit of 12.5% on bogus purchases. The sum and substan…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-14(1)(1) M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. R. No. 431, 4Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Akash Purochem Pvt. Ito-10(2)(1), Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 1/5 Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Churchgate, Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mumbai-400071 Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent

…is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs.6,03,04,458/- made on account of bogus/unproved purchases to the extent of only the profit of 12.5% of the said purchases relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451, which is distinguishable on facts. 8. As the issues are interlinked, we discuss below the 2nd and 3rd issue raised by the assessee along with the issues raised by the Revenue. In a nutshell, the facts are that the AO received information from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.6,03,0…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bds Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…017, order dated 16/01/2017. 2.10. 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 M/s BDS Projects Pvt. Ltd. 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, the…