CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

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…

M.S.Prints, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. M.S. Prints, Dcit-27(2), 105, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, Income Tax Office, T बनाम/ L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Ower No.6, Vashi Rly. Vs. Mumbai-400086 Station, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalfm4121D

…es (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, 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 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, th…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

…been deleted. Be that as it may, such like cases, the quantum proceedings have regularly come up before the Tribunal, which are generally being decided in the light of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat) wherein it is held that what is finally assessable is the amount relatable to profit on unexplained purchases and not the entire amount. Therefore, it is not a case where it can be said that there is any specific evidence furnished by the search party which showed clinchingly false purchases made by the assessee. Similar is the situatio…

Ajaykumar Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 31 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

…ubted and, therefore, it can at best be a case where the purchases would have been effected by the assessee in grey market. Under these circumstances, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Guj), what is liable to be assessed is only the net profit/savings effected by the assessee in making the purchases in grey market, and not the entire amount of such purchases. Taking a cue from the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to retain the addition only to the extent of 1…

DCIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Kundan Industries Ltd, Thane

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Kundan Industries Ltd., – Tax, Circle - 4 Kundan House, Room No. 2, ‘A’ Wing, Harisiddhi Indl. Estate, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Goraipada, Village Vasai East, Road No. 16Z, Thane - 401208 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane (West) - 400602 Pan: Aaack6811G

…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. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the principles of law down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Simla Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 4869 & 4870/MUM/2015 : A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-14(3)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Simla Steels Pvt. Ltd., (Appellant) Shop No. 2, Gaffoor Khan Estate, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 (Respondent) PAN : AAICS9256K ITA NOS. 4677& 4678/MUM/2015 : A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Simla Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO-14(3)(4), Mumbai Shop No. 2, Gaffoor Khan Estate, (Respondent) LBS Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 021 (Appellant) PAN : AAICS9256K Assessee by : None Revenue…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Simla Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Joginder Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.4677-4678/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Simla Steel Private Limited Ito-14 (3)(4) बनाम/ Shop No.2, Gaffoor Khan Estate [Erstwhile Ito 10(1)(4)] Aayakar Bhavan Lbs Marg, Kurla, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics 9256 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.4869-4870/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) वष" Ito-14 (3)(4) Simla Steel Private Limited बनाम/ [Erstwhile Ito 10(1)(4)] Shop No.2, Gaffor Khan Estate 455, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Lbs Marg, Kurla, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics 9256 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Anil Thakkar- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/10/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench

…the hands of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/06/2015 wherein Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451], restricted the impugned additions to 12%, against which the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. The only ground urged by Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Anil Thakkar, is the fact that estimated additions of 12% were still on the higher side considering the nature of assessee’s business whereas Ld…

Simla Steel P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri C.N. Prasad

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 4869 & 4870/MUM/2015 : A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11 ITO-14(3)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Simla Steels Pvt. Ltd., (Appellant) Shop No. 2, Gaffoor Khan Estate, LBS Marg, Kurla (W), Mumbai 400 070 (Respondent) PAN : AAICS9256K ITA NOS. 4677& 4678/MUM/2015 : A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Simla Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO-14(3)(4), Mumbai Shop No. 2, Gaffoor Khan Estate, (Respondent) LBS Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 021 (Appellant) PAN : AAICS9256K Assessee by : None Revenue…

Simla Steel P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Joginder Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.4677-4678/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Simla Steel Private Limited Ito-14 (3)(4) बनाम/ Shop No.2, Gaffoor Khan Estate [Erstwhile Ito 10(1)(4)] Aayakar Bhavan Lbs Marg, Kurla, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics 9256 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.4869-4870/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) वष" Ito-14 (3)(4) Simla Steel Private Limited बनाम/ [Erstwhile Ito 10(1)(4)] Shop No.2, Gaffor Khan Estate 455, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Lbs Marg, Kurla, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics 9256 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Anil Thakkar- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 23/10/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/11/2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench

…the hands of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 15/06/2015 wherein Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451], restricted the impugned additions to 12%, against which the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. 5. The only ground urged by Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Anil Thakkar, is the fact that estimated additions of 12% were still on the higher side considering the nature of assessee’s business whereas Ld…

Mohammed Salim F. Chohan, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2011-12 Mohammed Salim F. Acit-15(3), Shohan, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ 17/18, 4Th Floor, 28-Ali 1St Floor, Vs. Umer Street, Grant Road, Mumbai-400003 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aampc8124D

…is directed to work out the disallowance accordingly.” 2.11. 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 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…

Dolchand Kallaji & Naresh Traders (Jv), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…ai Tribunal, has observed 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. Hence, following the principles law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, discussed above, we modify the order of the Ld. C…

ITO (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Baun Foundation Trust, Mumbai

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 153/Jp/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2010-11 ) M.S Goenka Diamond & Jewells Acit, Circle-2, बिधम/ Ltd, 401, Panchratna, M.S.B. Ka Ncr Building, Rasta, Jaipur. Jaipur Vs.

…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 Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) 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 in the grey market, we are of the considered view that res…

Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), C-60, 15Th Floor, Saibaba Bkc, Bandra, बनाम/ Enclave Tower, C-Wing, Bldg. Mumbai-400076 Vs. No.3, C.D Baug, S.V. Road, Neari City Centre Mall, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Admpr0197G

…, order dated 16/01/2017. 19 Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah 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, th…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ambernath Steel Tube Income Tax Officer & Sanitary Store, Ward-2(1), बनाम/ Partner-Shri Vimal Adhia, 02Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Station Road, Ambarnath (W), Wayle Nagar, Maharashtra-421501 Khandakpada, Kalyan (W) "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7639L

…ordingly.” 15 Ambernath Steel Tube and Sanitary Store 2.11. 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 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, th…

Mira Construction-Jv, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mira Construction-Jv, Acit-32(2), C/52, Ganjawala Apartment, Bandra, बनाम/ Svp Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400092 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aapfm7470B

…he disallowance accordingly.” 15 Mira Construction-JV 2.11. 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 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, th…

Rhein Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4655 & 4656/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10) Rhein Chemicals Private Limited Ito, Ward 1(3), बनाम/ Plot No. 2, Midc, Kalyan Opp. Maliram Makharia, Badlapur Vs. (E), Kalyan-421 503 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr 8210 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. C. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 03.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11. 2. The First Common Issue Relates To The Validity Of Reopening & The Second Common Issue Relates To The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of 100% Of Bogus Purchase Rhein Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Ito Amounting To Rs.2,90,784/- For Assessment Year 2009-10 & Rs.1,20,089/- For Assessment Year 2010-11. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: In These Years, The Assessing Officer Had Received Information From The Sales

…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. 9. Accordingly, I modify the order of learned CIT(A) and direct that the disallowance be limited to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The ld. Counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition. Rhein Chemicals Private Limited vs. ITO 10. In the result, these appeals by the assesse…

Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Income Tax Officer-30(2)(3), 101, Hetal Arch. S.V. Road, Mumbai बनाम/ Opp. Natraj Market, Malad (W) Vs. Mumbai-400064 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aalfm2962N

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, 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 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 20 Mehta Emporium Jewellers disallowance was restric…

Mahavir Metal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri. Mahavir Metal, Vs. Asst. Cit 19(3) 6, Jaikuwar Bhavan Tardeo 8Th Khetwadi Lane Mumbai – 400 026 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaifs6733N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…xistence of the parties and the genuineness of the purchases lies on the assessee and assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast on it and he treated the purchases as non genuine. Relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and M/s. Bholenath Poly Fab P.Ltd. 355 ITR 290 made an addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases which worked out to Rs.26,04,089/-. 3 Shri. Mahavit Metal 6. By the impugned order, CIT(A) further reduced the addition made by AO by the G.P. rate declared by assessee after having the following observation:- 3.3. The submissions of the Ld.…

Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4583, 4584 & 4585/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sangeeta Ghanshyam Patel Acit-32(3), बनाम/ C-11, 1St Floor, Bkc, 1211 C, National Park View, Paheja Estate, Borivali, Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agtpp 4539 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya & Shri Darshan Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Common, These Appeals Were Heard Together & They Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

…r bogus purchase is not permissible. However, facts of that case were a little different inasmuch as sales were to government department. 13. I further find that in similar circumstances Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) has held that 12.5% disallowance of the bogus purchase in such situation meets the end of justice. Following the above catena of orders have been passed by the ITAT, Mumbai. Accordingly, I modify the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct that the disallowance in this case be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus…