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 367,164 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

Manish D. Mandhania, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 33(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1211/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…without which the assessee could not have declared the sales made. It is noted that only profit element is liable to tax in such cases as was held in the case of: 1. CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) (HC) 2. CIT vs Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT vs Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) 4. ITO vs Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 0d) (Trib.) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi vs ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 'B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.) (Trib.) 5 ITA No.1211/Mum/2017. Shri Manish D.Mandhania. 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) In vie…

Mayur Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2906/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51Section 69C

…ases (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.9. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, the…

Nitin Avantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)32, Mumbai

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

ITA 730/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 730/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nitin Avantilal Doshi Cit(A)-32, बनाम/ Gala No.3 To 5, Plot No. 13-A, Mumbai Magazine Street, Darukhana, Reay Vs. Road Rly Station, Mumbai-400 010 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpd 1214 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 03.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)-32, Mumbai Dated 06.01.2015 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 12.5% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.23,13,873/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ing disallowance @ 12.5 % of the alleged bogus while confirming that disallowance ought to be made on Gross Profit /Net Profit basis. Appellant pleads that the disallowance has been based on the profit of other entity (Profit @ 12.5 % in CIT vs Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj)). Appellant pleads that its Gross Profit'for the year was 10.57 % and Net Profit was 0.96 %. Considering that tax is payable on the Net Profit, appellant pleads that disallowance was needed to have been restricted to the Net Profit @ 0.96 %. 4. The order under appeal is not only bad in law and invalid, but also against the principals of nat…

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Reliable Enterprises, Dombivali

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

ITA 5352/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Purshottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Haresh R.Joshi
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148

…purchases in the open market and had obtained bills from the Hawala operators. In this process the appellant saved on the sales-tax 7 VAT and enhanced his profit by inflating the purchases. In this regard it is seen that in the case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court held as under – 5 ITA Nos.5352 & 5353/Mum/2015. M/s.Reliable Enterprises. The assessee in this case was engaged in the business of trading in steel on wholesale basis. Assessing Officer noticed that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assessee had made their statements on oath to the effect that they had not…

Rakesh Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3660/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannushri Rakesh Jitendra Shah Income Tax Officer-32(3)-1 601, Priyas Soecity Room No. 107, C-11 Ckp Colony, Ekasr Road Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bkc Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai 400092 Bandra, Mumbai 400051

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member Shri Rakesh Jitendra Shah Income Tax Officer-32(3)-1 601, Priyas Soecity Room No. 107, C-11 CKP Colony, Ekasr Road Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, BKC Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai 400092 Bandra, Mumbai 400051 PAN – AJMPS0113P Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Ashwin Kashinath Revenue by: Ms. N. Hemalatha Date of Hearing: 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2017 O R D E R Per G.S. Pannu, AM This appeal by the assessee has been filed against the order of the CIT(A)-44, Mumbai dated 06.01.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. T…

ITO WD 3(2), Thane vs. Rammangal S. Gupta, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2009-

ITA 2504/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3(2), Shri Rammangal S. Gupta, Room No. 4, B-Wing, 9, Kedar Bunglow, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Shivaji Nagar, Wagle Estate, Wagle Estate, Vs. Thane – 400604 Thane (W)- 400604 Pan: Aavpg3060H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (Sr. DR))
Section 133Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…72 ITR 619 (Bom) has held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. 10. So, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases referred above, we uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and in…

Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5801/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BiyaniFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IT(A) also accepted the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing certain percentage of impugned purchases in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451]. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) taking note of the report of the task group for M/s. Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P. Ltd Diamond Sector Submitted to Department of Commerce wherein the net profit margin in diamond manufacturing and trading was reported in the range of 1.5% to 4.5% and 1% to 3% respectively, he concluded that, as the assessee is trader in poli…

Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5800/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BiyaniFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IT(A) also accepted the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing certain percentage of impugned purchases in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451]. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) taking note of the report of the task group for M/s. Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P. Ltd Diamond Sector Submitted to Department of Commerce wherein the net profit margin in diamond manufacturing and trading was reported in the range of 1.5% to 4.5% and 1% to 3% respectively, he concluded that, as the assessee is trader in poli…

Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BiyaniFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…IT(A) also accepted the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing certain percentage of impugned purchases in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] and CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451]. Further, the Ld.CIT(A) taking note of the report of the task group for M/s. Amy Diam Vega Jewellery P. Ltd Diamond Sector Submitted to Department of Commerce wherein the net profit margin in diamond manufacturing and trading was reported in the range of 1.5% to 4.5% and 1% to 3% respectively, he concluded that, as the assessee is trader in poli…

ITO WD 1(4), Thane vs. Jaya Naresh Purswami, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer-1(4), Jaya Naresh Purswami, फनधभ/ Room No.11, B Wing, 6Th Floor, 1703, Light Bride, Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate, Hiranandani Meadows, Gladys Vs. Thane(W) Alwares Road, Thane. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Divesh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…ns and examining the records placed before him partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the bogus purchases at the rate of 12.5% of the purchases by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s Simit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant records as placed before us , we find that the assessee has indisputably availed the bogus entries of purchases from hawala traders to the tune of Rs.37,21,150/- which could not be proved during the assessee dur…

Anil Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2494/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2494/M/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Jain बिधम/ Ito 25(2)(1) Prop Jainson Marble Centre, R.No. 701, C012 Vs. S.K. Gupta, Compound, Opp Prattakshar Bhavan, Bkc Blossom Societ, Military Rd, Mumbai - Marol, Andheri(E)Pin:400059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaiphj4066H .. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Miss NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot he be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit belonging from 12.5 no 15% has been upheld by the Hon’ble gujarat High Court in the case of CIT VS. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Gui.) depending upon the nature of business. 5.11 Considering the totality of the Facts before me, as well as the judicial opinion available, I am inclined to agree with the appellant’s stand that the addition is excessive. The AO has disallowed the amount of Rs.48,46,947/- on account of bogus purchases. The total purchases debited to the tradin…

Arun Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7497/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

…ness of the purchases and since the assessee could not produce the parties before him he concluded that the purchases were not genuine. The Assessing Officer further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from out of the purchases made from these two dealers at 12.5% and added as income of the assessee in all these Assessment Years. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing…

Arun Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7496/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

…ness of the purchases and since the assessee could not produce the parties before him he concluded that the purchases were not genuine. The Assessing Officer further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from out of the purchases made from these two dealers at 12.5% and added as income of the assessee in all these Assessment Years. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing…

Arun Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7495/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

…ness of the purchases and since the assessee could not produce the parties before him he concluded that the purchases were not genuine. The Assessing Officer further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from out of the purchases made from these two dealers at 12.5% and added as income of the assessee in all these Assessment Years. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing…

Arun Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7494/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

…ness of the purchases and since the assessee could not produce the parties before him he concluded that the purchases were not genuine. The Assessing Officer further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from out of the purchases made from these two dealers at 12.5% and added as income of the assessee in all these Assessment Years. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing…

Arun Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7493/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

…ness of the purchases and since the assessee could not produce the parties before him he concluded that the purchases were not genuine. The Assessing Officer further following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [355 ITR 290] estimated the profit element from out of the purchases made from these two dealers at 12.5% and added as income of the assessee in all these Assessment Years. The assessee preferred appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing…

Indubhai Prushottamdas Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed and that of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5622/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Nk Pradhan, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Ito-32(1)(5) B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Opp. Diamond Cinema, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Assessee .. Revenue Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito-32(1)(5) Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Opp. Diamond Cinema, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Revenue .. Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…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 judgement 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 and respectfully following the same, we also will estimate the profit rate at a higher rate than applied by the CIT(A) at 2.52%, which is very low. According to us, a reasonable profit rate of 10% will meet the end of justice. We direct the A.O. to a…

Ashok Bhandari, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Ashok Bhandari Vs. Ito 19(1)(2), Pioneer Forge India R.No.204, Matru Mandir 178/180, Tulsi Building Tardeo Road, Shop No.35, Mumbai – 400 007 Khetwadi Back Road Mumbai -400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aabpb1870G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM Shri Ashok Bhandari Vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Pioneer Forge India R.No.204, Matru Mandir 178/180, Tulsi Building Tardeo Road, Shop No.35, Mumbai – 400 007 Khetwadi Back Road Mumbai -400 004 PAN/GIR No.AABPB1870G Appellant) Respondent) .. Assessee by None Revenue by Shri S.K. Mitra Date of Hearing 07/09/2017 Date of Pronouncement 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 29, Mumbai dated 09/02/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.…

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Greases & Sepcialites P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 475/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-14(3)(2), 455, M/S. Standard Greases & Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Specialities Pvt. Ltd. M.K. Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 बिधम/ 101, Ketan Apartment, 233, R.B. Mehta Marg, Patel Vs. Chowk, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai-400 077 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs2136B (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…actual trading and not having evidence of selling goods to the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Seth, 356 ITR 451, when the facts in the case is clearly distinguishable. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O of Rs. 22,10,351/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grou…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. Shri Kantilal C. Jain 5.10. 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, the…