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

ACIT 20(1), Mumbai vs. Dhananjay G Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2256/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-20(1), Shri Dhananjay G. Mishra, Room No.113, 1St Floor, Unit No.29, Neelgiri Indl. Piramal Chambers, Estate, Vs. Lalbaug, T.J. Road, Mumbai-400 012 Sewree (W), Mumbai - 15 Pan: Aflpm1475K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 148

…t. of Maharashtra. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving full relief to the assesses whereas in similar issues in the cases of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) CIT Vs. Simit Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), the Tribunal have decided that though the purchase might have been made form bogus parties, the purchases themselves were not bogus and Hon'ble Tribunal was of the opinion that not the entire amount, but the profit margin embedded in such purchase amount would be subjected to tax. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case in la…

Premier Core Industries, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1747/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष M/S Premier Core Industries Dy. Commissioner Of Income C-43/A-5, Ferrodia Industrial Co- Tax, Circle 3, फनधभ/ Operative Society, Road No.22, Thane Vs. Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ofit is at 10.61% in AY 2009-10 i.e. the year when purchase were made from hawala dealers. Obviously, this is due to the fact that purchases have been inflated. Therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat 5 High Court in the case of Simit P Seth (365 ITR 451) I direct the assessing officer to restrict the addition to Rs.3,89,126(15% of Rs.25,94,174)/- instead of Rs.25,94,174/- made by him. The appellant gets relief of Rs.22,05,048/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.“ 4. We have carefully considered the contentions of the ld DR and perused the material placed before us including the orders of…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 4373/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 69C

…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 ITA Nos.4373 to 4376//Mum/2016 14 M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was r…

Axis Realty P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4110/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सुं./I.T.A. No. 4110/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Axis Realty Private Limited, Dy. Cit-9(1), A-501, Gladdioia, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ Old Hanuman Road, Next To Tilak Mumbai-400 020 Vs. School, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No. Aadca 3025 D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…o estimate the profit rate, i.e., the NP rate earned by assessee on the savings he has made of Maharashtra VAT and purchase of items at a lower price. We take guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), wherein Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has applied profit rate at 12.5% on the bogus purchases. Respectfully following the same, we also will estimate the profit rate at 12.5% and restrict the addition accordingly. According to us, a reasonable profit rate of 12.5% will meet the end of justice. We direct the A.O. to apply profit rate at 12.5%…

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Abdul Kayyum Khan, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2729/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(1), Shri Abdul Kayyum Khan 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. M/S Anjur Steel Traders Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada 1105/2-3, Dharni Arcade, Kalyan. Opp. Octroi Naka, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Angpk6700L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Again there was no compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Shah 356 ITR 451 and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 15% of the said purchases. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR submits that there was no compliance by the assessee to the statutory notice issued by the AO. Also there was no compliance by the assessee to the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed the addition of…

ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpak Metal Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 2508/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2508/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(5), M/S. Pushpak Metal Industries बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Office No. 13, 2Nd Floor, 16 Khatri Bldg., 2Nd Carpenter Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Street Cp Tank, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfp 8826 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri/Smt. N. Hemlatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.01.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Revenue Is Aggrieved That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Sustained 100% Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchases. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri/Smt. N. HemlathaFor Respondent: None

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…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. 2508/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO-19(2)(5), M/s. Pushpak Metal Industries बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Office No. 13, 2nd Floor, 16 Khatri Bldg., 2nd Carpenter Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Street CP Tank, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AALFP 8826 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri/Smt. N. Hemlatha ""यथ"…

Bhoomi Elegant, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5563/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Bhoomi Elegant Dcit 15(3) 8Th Floor, Sahara Road,Kaledone, Mumbai Vs. Coldongri, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Shri V Vidhyadhar

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)

…, total addition of ` 2,65,67,982/- was made. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of ` 2,64,82,022/- i.e. ` 33,10,253/- in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT vs Simit P Seth 356 ITR 451 and Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 and that of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO in ITA No. 2801/Ahd/2008 dated 20.05.2011. 3 Bhoomi Elegant 3. We heard the rival submissions and have gone through the order of the tax authorities below. We noted that in this case the Assessing Officer on the…

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat R Valia, Dombivali

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5357/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri D.T. Garasia (Jm) & B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148

…the assessee has failed to furnish confirmation letters obtained from suppliers nor could he produce them before the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the value of purchases. The apparent inference drawn by the Ld CIT(A) is that the assessee could have made profit from out the impugned purchases by sourcing the materials from some other sources. Under facts of this case, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has taken a fair view on this matter and…

Pr Pharma Source P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannup.R Pharma Source Pvt. Ltd, A-407 Anjani Complex, 4Th Floor, Opp.Gurunank Petrol Pump, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099. Pan Aaecp 2829H ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir. 10(3)(2), Mumbai. .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 148

…from record that assessee is a trader of goods and its sales, including the sales of the impugned purchase of goods, stands established and is not doubted. Under such circumstances, following the ratio of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451(Guj) what is liable to be assessed is merely the profit element on the unproved purchases and not the entire amount of 3 purchase. Thus, considering the said ratio, I set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to retain an addition of amount equal to 12.5% of the unproved purchases and delete the balance. 5. Thus, assess…

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Jayesh Velji Karia, Dombivali

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 3135/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Rakhmabai Jadhav Niwas, Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., Dhorte Compound, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E), 421201 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Jainam Traders), Ward-3(5), C-38, Munshi Estate, Kalyan 1St Floor, M.G. Road, Vs. Above Mahavir Jain Dudhalay, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., New Bharat Chs, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Karia Traders), Ward-3(5), 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan New Bharat Chs, Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…red before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent/assessee. 8. So far as the addition of 12.5% made by the Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, 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. Hence, in our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’…

ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Jaishankar R. Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 5734/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5733 & 5734/MUM/2016 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2009-10) ITO – 26(1)(4) v. Jaishankkar R. Mishra R.No.707, C-11, 7th Floor, 12/A, 302, Venus Apartment, B.K.C.Bandra (E) Bhakti Park, Wadala (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 037 PAN: AFYPM 3474 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Ms. Arju Garodia Date of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06.10.2017 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed by the…

ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Jaishankar R. Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 147

Niko Associates, Thane vs. ITO 3(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1731/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Niko Associates, Ito-3(1), 6, Mohan Building, It Park, Wagle Estate, Vs. Pipe Line Road, Thane Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aaffn7758K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Momder Vaidya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Momder Vaidya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, 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), we direct the AO to take GP @ 12.5%. 5 M/s. Niko Associates 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.10.2017. (P.K. Bansal) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date…

Pushpak Auxichem P. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3344/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Wd 1(3) 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza 241, B-2, Kasturi Plaza 2Nd Floor, Manpada Road Wayale Nagar Dombivli Khadakpada Thane- 421201 Kalyan (W)- 421 301 Pan/Gir No.Aabcp0099E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…where at the most, the purchase amount would have been inflated. The appellant has already declared GP of 13.02% in its books of account. Therefore, following the principle laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Simit P Seth (356 ITR 451), I accordingly direct the AO to restrict the addition to Rs.6,46,080/- (20% of Rs.32,30,396/-) instead of Rs.32,30,396/- made by him. The appellant gets relief of Rs.25,84,316/-. These grounds of appeal are accordingly partly allowed. 5. It is clear from the order of CIT(A) that he has dealt with the issue threadbare and estimated extra profit…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sunjyot Gems, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3239/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3239/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Sunjyot Gems Central Circle 3(3) Ae 7030 R.No.1913 बनाम/ Bharat Diamond Bourse Air India Building Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. 19Th Floor, Nariman Point Bandra East Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfs-9404-Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nt inquiries were made by Ld. AO whereas the assessee supplied requisite documents and the payments were through banking channels. Finally, placing reliance on CBDT circular No. 2/98 dated 22/02/1998 and decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451, Ld. CIT(A) estimated the additions @6%. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] placed reliance on the stand of Ld. AO and contended that the assessee could not produce any of the party for confirmation of transactions. Further, the search / survey action on the concerned group clearly r…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Pushpak Auxichem P.Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, 804, Iris, 8Th Floor, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Regency Estate, Bldg. No.7, Kalyan (West), Dayaneshwar Ngar, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301 Shill Road, Dombivali (East), Thane (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…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 disallowance was restricted to 12.5% depending upon t…

Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1 बनाम/ House No. 1, Green Park, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. A-Wing, 1St Floor, Wayale Nagar Khandakpada, Bhiwandi-421302 Kalyan (W), Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aajcs1619M

…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 disallowance was restricted to 12.5% depending upon t…

Shree Bhomiya Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2031/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Shree Bhomiya Gems, Income Tax Officer-33(3)(4), C-11, 3Rd Floor, C-1102, Panchsheel Heights, Mahavir Nagar, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Bkc, Kandivali (West), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aanfs0230M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri V.G. Ginde, A.R. Revenue By : Miss N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde, A.RFor Respondent: Miss N. Hemalatha, 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 direct the AO to take the GP @ 12.5%. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.10.2017. (D.T. Garasia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 03.10.2017. * Kis…

Bhavik Kamlesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1768/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri N.M.PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 234A

…he authorities below have not doubted the sales, there cannot be any justification for hundred percent disallowance of purchases. In similar facts Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the 6 ITA No.1768/Mum/2017. Shri Bhavik Kamlesh Shah case of Simit P.Sheth [(2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.)] has upheld disallowance of 12.5% out of the bogus purchases. As operating in the grey market gives the assessee savings / benefits on account of non-payment of taxes and others at the expense of Exchequer. This proposition has been upheld at ITAT Mumbai benches in several cases. Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and pr…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…n-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such circumstances, following the precedent from Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Simit P. Sheth 13 ITA No.1288 & CO 191/Mum/2017. M/s.Jostars Orogotech Private Limited. (2013) 356 ITR 451, we are of the considered opinion that 12.5% disallowance in this case would serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, we modify the order of the learned CIT(A) and hold that disallowance in this case should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 18. In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by…