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 367,181 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

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M.S. Infraproject P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5607/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5607/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Ito-12(3)(3), Vs. M/S M.S. Infraproject Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, G Wing, Flat No. 3, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ground Floor, Sumer Nagar – Mumbai - 400020 Building, S.V. Road, Behind Ajanta Party Hall, Borivali West, Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabc17701C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Anil Thakrar (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2017

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Thakrar (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)

Section 129Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…i 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 Gujarat 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 of law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, discussed above, we partly allow the appeal of…

Irfan Habib Lakdawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4768/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 148

…allans, transport receipts, octroi payment evidences and proof to show the receipt of material. Since the assessee had reconciled purchase of materials with sales, by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), the Assessing Officer estimated the profit on such purchase at 12.5% and accordingly added a sum of ` 12.22 lakhs to the total income of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to ` 5.58%, being the gross profit rate declared by the assessee and accordingly sustained the addition to the extent of ` 5,45,750/- and granted relief…

Pankaj Kumar Dani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 341/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. KFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ases are concerned, it is found that notices u/s 133(6) were issued to all the parties. It could not be served on any 5.3 On the issue of bogus purchase, decisions (Ike Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj) , CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Gui.) support disallowance of certain percentage of purchase price. The disallowance is justified because the exact source of goods or exact amount of inflation is known to the assessee only. Further, without a much bigger benefit than the normal GP ratio, no prudent person will enter into transactions of purchasing materials from one source and…

ITO WD 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Shikha Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3302/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…Pahuja (2015) 54 taxmann.com 258. Therefore cosindering 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 and undue benefit of VAT against bogus…

ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vision Enterprises, Mumbai

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2422/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2422/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: None

Section 147

…ofit on the total bogus purchases. Therefore cosindering 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 and undue benefit of VAT against bogus…

Sunil B. Vorani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly these ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1337/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1337/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchi RathodFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…5% of the total sales. In our considered view, considering the facts 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 8 Sunil B. Vorani (HUF) (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 also considering the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of SMC in assessee’s own case and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by asse…

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Topnotch Chemicals P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 6231/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Dcit 15(3)(1), Vs. M/S Topnotch Chemicals Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No. C-116, Maharshi Karve Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No. 155/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Topnotch Chemicals Private Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. 15(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Plot No. C-116, Aaykar Bhavan, Ttc Industrial Area, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Thane Belapur Road, Pawane Village, Navi Mumbai - 400705 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3865F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm The Present Appeal & Cross Objection Have Been Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Against Order Dated 18/08/2016 Passed By The 2 Ita No. 6231/Mum/2016 & Co No. 155/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…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 dismiss all the grounds of ap…

Prithviraj G. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3057/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

…er having accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. He also Placed reliance on the following decisions in its support: - 6 ITA.No.911/MUM/2016 ITA.No.1805 & 3057/MUM/2017 Prithviraj G.Jain (i) CIT v. Simit P. Seth, (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) (ii) CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) (iii) CIT v. Satyanarayan P. Rathi (2013) 355 ITR 150 (GUJ) (iv) ITO v. Sunsteel (2005) 92 TTJ (Ahd) 1126 (v) Shri Ghevarchand B. Jain (Appeal No. CIT(A) 27/16(3)/180/13-14) (order dated 01.04.2014 of Hon'ble CIT(A) – 27, Mumbai for A.Y.2010-11) 7. Before us Learned Counsel fo…

Prithviraj G. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1805/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Prithviraj G. Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 911/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

Asst CIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sagar Sai Enterprises, Dombivali

ITA 5674/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme & Shri Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA No. 5674/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण ACIT – Cir. -3 M/s. Sagar Sai Enterprises 2nd Floor,Rani Mansion, Shop No.6, Venkatesh Darshan, subhash Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Vs. Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dist. Thane. Dombivili (W)-…

Sun Star Advertinsing P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3598/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sun N Star Advertising Acit- Circle-3, Pvt. Ltd., Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagle Estate, D-303, Anant Laxmi Chamber, Vs. Gokhale Road, Road No.16-Z, Naupada, Thane – 406 602 Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aaics8518C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

…ncy as well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% to 15% has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 5 M/s. Sun N Star Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 385 (Guj) and keeping in view of the GP already declared @5%, I direct the AO to take the GP @ 7.5% which comes to Rs.2,33,655/-. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.…

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5096/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B/2, Parekh Mahal, 80, Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacs5390N

Section 69C

…s 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, th…

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5019/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

Section 69C

…owance accordingly.” 15 P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd. 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…

DCIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infrapojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4231/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 4231/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 4232/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 4233/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2007-08) I.T.A. No. 4235/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 4236/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 4237/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, CC-6(4) M/s. J. Kumar Room No. 1925 Vs. Infraprojects Limited 19th Floor 16-Andheri Industrial Air India Building Estate, Veera Desai Nariman Point Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-…

ACIT, Cir.-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopani Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 2943/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2943/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Gopani Metal Industries Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)-1, Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 573, 5Th Floor, 37, Llyods House, Aayakar Bhavan, Baroda Street, M.K. Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400009 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb1392G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. Prakash Jotwani (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 02/11/2017

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)

Section 133Section 143

…doing so the assessee has evaded VAT and other taxes applicable during the relevant period. So in our view, the estimated profit earned by the assessee should be added to the income of the assessee. 10. 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 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. In the light of the aforesaid 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 judgment, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) and sustain…

Reliant Pipes & Tubes P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3383/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3383/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Reliant Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-5(3)(1), बनाम/ 3/5, Ground Floor, Sakar Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr 8444 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3383/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Reliant Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. ITO-5(3)(1), बनाम/ 3/5, Ground Floor, Sakar Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, 6th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AADCR 8444 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 3…

Prashant Ganjanan Redij, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(5), Thane

ITA 6247/MUM/2016[2001-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2001-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6247/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…A) upheld the orders passed by AO who in turn while passing the assessment order had relied upon the orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali Abdulali and the judgment passed by Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 whereas Ld. DR has relied upon the judgment of N. K. Proteins Ltd. Vrs. DCIT passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Since the revenue has not 8 I.T.A. No. 6247/Mum/2016 Prashan Ganjanan Redij preferred any appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we reject the arguments raised by Ld. DR that 100% additions of entire bogus purchases o…

DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alaln Electronics Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3309/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3309/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Alan Electronic Systems Income Tax 15(1)(1) Private Limited बनाम/ Room No.483A,4Th Floor, A,34,2Nd Floor Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Crescent Industrial Estate Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kanjurmarg (East) Mumbai- 400 042 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabca-9296-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Aditya R Ajgaonkar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…from alleged parties were actually consumed/sold.” 4. “On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue by relying upon the ratio of case laws M/s.Simit P.Sheth (2013) 18 Taxmann.com 385(Guj) and M/s.Bholanath Polyfab Pvt.Ltd.335 ITR 290 (Guj.) and M/s.Sanket Steel Traders without appreciating the fact that in all the aforesaid cases the assessee had maintained the quantitative records contrary to this in the instant case no such records were produced before the A.O. for examination.” 2.1 Briefly stated, the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in the manufacturing…

Income Tax Officer-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonal Dye Chem Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-13(2)(2), M/S. Sonal Dye Chem Pvt. Room No.147, 1St Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. C-101, Blue Bell Tower, M.K. Road, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai –20 Mumbai-400 092 Pan: Aaics3288F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, Sr.A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rahim Chotaliya, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. N. Hemalatha, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahim Chotaliya, D.R

Section 133(6)

…ncy as well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% to 15% has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 385 (Guj), I dismiss the departmental appeal. 6. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2017. (D.T. Garasia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 31.10.2017. * Kishore, Sr. P.…