CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Modern Road Makers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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)

…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…

Yasika Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yasika Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Juliet Ravichandran, Shop No. 2A, Mahavir Darshan, Ito – 5(3)(4), Khetwadi, Khambata Lane, Mumbai Mumbai – 400004 Vs. Pan: Aaacy2914J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

…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 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 assessee. Hence, following the principles law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, discussed above, we…

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh K. Desai, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7357/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mukesh K. Desai, Income Tax-25(3), 9, 2Nd Floor, Madhukunj, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, V.S. Khandekar Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpd778D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : None

…. CIT (A) has erred in disallowing the depreciation @ 12.5% of total disallowance of Rs. 55,77,537/-. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying upon the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj), in as much that no independent enquires were conducted by the AO in that case, whereas in the instant case, inquiries were conducted and adverse finding were also communicated to the assessee and hence the ratio laid down therein are not applicable to the instant case. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld…

ITO WD 2(2), Kalyan vs. K Manyar, Ulhasnagar

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6229/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S K. Manyar, Ward 2(2), Prop. Madhu H. Maniyar (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Bk No. 831, Room No. 1, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Sec. 17, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Ulhasnagar - 421503 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahhm3368J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Virag M Shah (Ar)

…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 5 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Courts of Bombay and Gujarat, discussed above, w…

ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Detection Instrument India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6195/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Acit- 15(1)-2, Vs. M/S Detection Instruments Room No. 483-A, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, El/36, Electronics Zone, Mumbai - 400020 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai - 400710 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1659F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Rakesh Joshi (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

…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…

Shri. Hariram S. Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 15(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2091/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hariram S. Bishnoi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 107/111, 1St Floor, Ward 15(2) (4), 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpb8257B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

…t Year: 2011-12 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 uphold the order of the Ld. C…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

…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…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Re Infra P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Re Infra. Private Limited, – Tax – 14 (3) (1), Office No. 3, Gangatara, Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 73 Pestom Sagar Road No. 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400089 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7593R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

…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. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 10. Since, it has been established in this case that the assessee had purchased the goods in question from the part…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Amar Construction Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Office Of The Acit 25(2), M/S. Amar Construction R. No.508, C-10, Corporation, 5Th Floor, 6, Chunawala Building, Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dixit Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaefa 1093P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashi S. Varma, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2017 O R D E R

…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), we dismiss the departmental appeal. 6. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2017. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17.10.2017. * Kishore,…

Shree Chemtech Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

…, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. by holding that the purchases were bogus. Further, holding that the sales have not been doubted, he followed the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 and confirmed the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard both the ld. Counsel and perused the records. 6 Shree Chemtech Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 9. As regards the reopening of the assessee, on a careful consideration, I note that in this case informat…

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citybuild Arcade P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…situation, in our 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. The learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that on similar fact in subsequent year, i.e. A.Y. 2010-2011, the Assessing Officer has himself disallowed only 3 ITA No.7224/Mum/2016. M/s.RA Biotech Private Limited. 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The learned Counsel has also produced the…

Sumit M. Malhotra, Kalyan vs. ITO 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6697 & 6698/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Mr. Sumit M. Malhotra Income-Tax Officer 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, C/O. M/S. S. M. Steel Traders बनाम/ 702, “A” Wing, Archies Apartment, Murbad Road, Vs. Oak Baug, Near Railway Station, Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Kalyan (W) – 421 301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaypm 8541 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

…by inflating the purchases. Therefore a suitable disallowance is required to be made on account of unproved purchases after rejecting the appellant's books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act. In this regard it is seen that in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court upheld a disallowance of 12.5% of such unproved purchases after holding as under – In the present case, CIT believed that when as a trader in steel the assessee sold certain quantity of steel, he would have purchased the same quantity from some source. When the total sale is accepted by the Assessing Officer, he could…

DCIT RG 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ana Designs P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘E’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA No.6638/Mum/2016 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax M/s.ANA Designs Private Limited बनाम/ Range 9(1)(2) A-B,1 Takshila Apartment Mumbai. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Vs. Mumbai – 400 093. PAN : AAAECA8160C. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri V.Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : --- None --- सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 16.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 1…

Shishikala R. Bohra, Ambernath vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘E’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Sandeep Gosain, JM ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Mum/2016 Asst.Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Smt.Shashikala R. Bohra Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ Proprietor M/s.Ferrocraft Enterprises Circle – 2 A-98, Anand Nagar, Addl.MIDC Kalyan. Vs. Ambernath – 421 506. PAN : AFFPB9596Q. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S.M.Makhija ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V.Justin सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 16.08.2017 Dat…

Gopal Jaikisandas Arora, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 33(1) (3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee fails in its appeal

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2009-10

…as quite justified in estimating the addition on the basis of 12.5% of the unverifiable purchases, an action which is in consonance with a similar situation dealt with by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 4 Gopal Jaikisandas Arora the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat). Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) on this aspect. In the result, assessee fails in its appeal. 7. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 2017. (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Date : 13th October, 2017 *SSL* Copy to : 1) The Ap…

DCIT Circle - 3, Thane vs. Shivram Narayan Kelkar, Thane

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Shivram Narayan Income Tax, Kelkar, Circle-3, Room No.02, Prop. Of M/S. Omega Lab 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Chemical, 1St Floor, Sanyog, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Ghantali Temple, Thane (W)-400 604 Thane (W) – 400 602 Pan: Abcpk 1719R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. 5 Shri Shivram Narayan Kelkar 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 dismiss the departmental appeal. 6. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 13.10.2017. * Kishore…

R R Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Acit 13(2) B-9/10, Kanmoor House, Mumbai 281/287, Narshi Natha Vs. Street, Mumbai- 400 009 Pan: Aaafr 3906N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A.C. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. & Shri R.P. Meena, Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

…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 5 M/s. R.R. Enterprises CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 385 (Guj), we direct the AO to estimate the GP rate @ 12.5%. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017. (G. Manjunatha) JUDICIAL MEMB…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jai Prakash Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri Jai Prakash Jindal, Ward 20(2)(1), (Prop. Of M/S. Three A Room No.216, Brothers), Vs. Piramal Chamber, 19/8, Madhkar Chs.,. Lalbaug, R.A. Kidwai Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aaapj6514A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…nnot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% to 15% has been upheld by 5 Shri Jai Prakash Jindal, (Prop. of M/s. Three A Brothers) 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 dismiss the departmental appeal. 6. In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2017. (G. Manjunatha) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 13.10.2017. * Kishore, Sr. P…

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah ITO-3(5) 28, Tapasya HSG SCTY, 2nd floor, Rani Vs. above ICICI Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. PAN No. ANLPS6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2nd floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 PAN No. ANLPS6347J App…

Rajesh Ambalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan

In the result, the cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2Nd Floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan No. Anlps6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah Ito-3(5) 28, Tapasya Hsg Scty, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Above Icici Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Rajesh Ambalal Shah ITO-3(5) 28, Tapasya HSG SCTY, 2nd floor, Rani Vs. above ICICI Bank, G.M. Manison, Murbad Road, Pestom Sagar, Road Kalyan (W) Chembur, Kalyan-421301 Mumbai-400089. PAN No. ANLPS6347J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-3(5) Shri Rajesh Ambalal 2nd floor, Rani Manison, Shah Vs. Murbad Road Kalyan A-504, Sanskardi (W) Apartment, Lal Kalyan-421301 Chauky, Agra Road, Kalyan (W)-421301 PAN No. ANLPS6347J App…