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 147Section 148Section 132Section 131Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 69csection 131section 133(6)reassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 69section 132section 13section 148businesssection 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Anil Popatlal Udeshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 40/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Anil Popatlal Udeshi, Income Tax Officer – Birla Mansion No.2, 19(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Dr. Dd Sathe Marg, Vs. Prathana Samaj, Mumbai - 07 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaapu1762D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, 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.). Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly we have no alternative except to endorse the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2017. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 31.10.2017. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy t…

Kainya & Associates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 211/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Kumar Raj, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 271

…ained 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 5 ITA No.211/M/2017 & ITA No.1085/M/2017 M/s. Kainya & Associates P. Ltd. 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), we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we have no alternative except to endorse the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, assessee’s appe…

ACIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Choron Diamond (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 6800/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Asst CIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Choron Diamond (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 6798/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Karp Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6654/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Karp Impex Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner Ge-3051, G Block, Of Income Tax-5(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabck1823F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suman Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…on laws that profit from business 5 M/s. Karp Impex Ltd. 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.). We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we have no alternative except to endorse the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2017. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 31.10.2017. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellan…

Choron Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 5871/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Choron Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 5870/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Choron Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 5869/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Choron Diamonds (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 5868/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Choron Diamonds (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 4379/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147

…es, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 7 ITA.No.4449, 6798 and 6800/MUM/2016 ITA.No.4379, 5868 to 5871/MUM/2016 M/s. Choron Diamond (I) Pvt. Ltd. ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and accordingly he estimated the profit element in the purchases at 4% for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 3% for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011- 12 and 2013-14. 6. Before us the Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee is into 100% export of diamonds and the addition was made only based on the admission of Shri Rajend…

Narsi Devji Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 540/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-22(2), Shri Narsi Devji Patel, 315, Piramal Chambers, Flat No.308, Mangal Gyan, 12Th Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Near Ram Mandir, Khar (W) Mumbai -52 Pan: Aacpp 3084H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Narsi Devji Patel, Office Of The Acit-22(2), 3Rd Flat No.301, Mangal Gyan, 315, Floor, Piramal 12Th Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Near Ram Mandir, Mumbai – 400 012 Khar (W) Mumbai -400052 Pan: Aacpp 3084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 133(6)

…1149/M/2017 & ITA No.540/M/2017 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), we estimate the net additions at 12.5% instead of 25% made by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the addition sustained by us @ 12.5% of Rs.2,13,55,190/- comes to Rs.26,69,399/-. Therefore, we partly allow the assessee’s ap…

Kirti K Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3532/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rahul K HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…ng account from these parties are Rs.2,39,21,243/-. The A.O. has disallowed 12.5% of alleged. purchases of Rs.2,39,21,243/-. 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.). Considering the totality of the facts before me, as well as the judicial opinion available, I am inclined to agree with the with the A.O. The A.O. has disallowed 12.5% 'of alleged purchase only on account of bogus purchases. I am of the view that estimation of profit at 12.5% is justified. Therefore, addition made by the A.O. is upheld an…

Simplex Thermal Solution, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 6907/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6907/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Simplex Thermal Solutions, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of 206, Hallmark Commercial - Income Tax, Complex, Lbs Marg, Circle – 29(3), Mulund (West), Mumbai - Mumbai - 400080 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjfs0212J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Navin Mishra (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Navin Mishra (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…es should not be treated as bogus. The assessee, however, expressed its inability to produce the parties for verification, The AO rejected the contention of the assessee and following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 made addition of 12.5% of the total purchases made by the assessee during the assessment year under consideration. The AO also made other disallowances and thereby determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,06,84,230/-. 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the as…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rchases (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, there c…

Re3Ninsha Impex P.Ltd, Surat vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4464/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 4464/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year 2012-13) Renisha Impex P. Ltd., Ito, Ward 5(3)(1); Off. No. 304, Iii Floor, Mumbai. बिधम/ Vs. 6/2037 Papadwala Building, Mahindrapura; Surat – 395 003. स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aadcb1980G (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69C

…ble to be restricted only to the extent of the profit that would have been involved in purchasing of the goods from the open/grey market. The CIT(A) took support of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). The CIT(A) observed that in the case of Simit P. Sheth (supra) the Hon’ble High Court had taken into consideration the saving of VAT which the assessee must had benefitted from by making the purchases from the open/grey market. The CIT(A) applying the methodology which was adopted by the High Court for estimating the profit element in resp…

ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Lifetchniques, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 305/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Income Tax Officer Liftechniques Ward 20(2)(4), Room No.212, Minerva Industrial Estate Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Opp. Acme Indl. Estae, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Bunder Road, Sewri (East), Mumbai-400 015 Appellant Respondent .. Pan No.Aaafl8801C

For Appellant: Mukarram H. Sadiko, ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…Tribunal. 6. Now, before us the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“DR”) enhanced profit rate and he pleaded that the profit at the rate of 12.5% be estimated in view of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Going by the facts and circumstances and the findings of CIT(A), we are of the view 5 Liftechniques (AY: 09-10) that the profit estimated by the CIT(A) at 8.72% a slightly lower and hence, we direct the AO to apply profit rate at the rate of 10% of the bogus purchases and assessed the income accordingly. We direct the AO accordingly. 7.…

Rakeshkumar S. Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 145(3)

…CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also relying upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj) and also CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) scaled down estimation of net profit to 12.5%. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) was erred in estimating net profit at 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases ignoring evidences filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases. The Ld.AR…

Shalimar Wire Agency, Mumbai vs. DCIT C.C. -13 (Erstwhile) DCIT C.C. 2(3) (Present), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2213/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nimisha L. BothraFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

…ned Counsel for the assessee further submits that the Assessing Officer having accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. He also Placed reliance on the following decisions in its support: - (i) CIT v. Simit P. Seth, (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) 5 ITA.No.2213/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) Shalimar Wire Agency (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) –…

Pristine Engineering Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5879/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pristine Engineering Acit, Ward 20(2)/Cit Services, City 20, B-34, Nand Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Vs. Lalbaug, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafp1771B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)

…d without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% 5 ITA No.5879/M/2016 & ITA No.5880/M/2016 M/s. Pristine Engineering Services 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), we direct the AO to estimate the GP @ 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.8,90,917/- which comes to Rs.1,11,364/-. Hence, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 6. The assessee has similarly suffered disa…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5126/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C

…wance of purchases of steel for Surat- Dahisar and Kolhapur project at 5% of the impugned (disputed) purchases would meet the end of justice. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. in CIT Vs Simit P Seth [2013(356 ITR 451)] and by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hariram Bhambani ITA No 313 of 2013. The facts of the decision in N. K. Proteins (supra) relied by ld. DR for the revenue are at variance. In the said case the assessee was trader. During the search action in that case blank signed cheques books and numbers of vouchers were found on the basis of which the t…

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) — Cited in 1,465 Judgments | BharatTax