CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Dharmendra Mansukklal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannushri Dharmendra M. Parikh Assistant Commissioner Prop. M/S. Dharmesh Steel Of Income Tax – 31(1) A/2, Shruti Building, Yashodham Vs. Mumbai Dindoshi, Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400063 Pan – Aacpp4474D Appellant Respondent

…rial from the parties in question. The AO proceeded to observe that the purchases had been effected by the assessee in gray market from other sources. Therefore, considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 she has considered it appropriate to make an addition of 12.5% of the total purchase of `1,67,89,448/- being `20,98,681/-. Thus, in this manner the AO assessed the total income at `29,34,2900/- as against the returned income of `8,35,l610/-. 4. Before the CIT(A) the assessee contended that the purchases could not be considered as ingenuine and t…

Jvm Steel P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

…to the facts of the present case. Therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus…

ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nisrin Mohd Deesawal, Mumbai

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6241/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…not in a position to discharge his initial onus of proving the genuineness of the purchase. In such circumstances and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against 5 I.T.A. No. 6241/Mum/2016 Nisrin Mohd. Deesawal. purchase of material in the…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Mangalam Infra Development Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6106/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Ito-12(3)(3), Vs. M/S Mangalam Infra Room No. 224, Development Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Ground Floor, M.K. Road, Shreeji Shopping Centre, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं /Co No. 206/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalam Infra Vs. The Ito-12(3)(3), Development Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 16, Ground Floor, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shreeji Shopping Centre, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 M.G. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai - 400066 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm3854Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

…he Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that merely because its suppliers had not appeared before the A.O. or the ld. CIT(A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sumit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition of 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. 5 ITA No. 6106/MUM/2016 & CO No. 206/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 10. We further notice that the coordinate Bench of the tr…

Nitin Rajmal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Nitin Rajmal Shah The Dy. Commissioner Of C-113, Shyam Kamal, Income Tax, Circle-6 Agarwal Market, Vile Parle Cgo Annexe Vs. (East) Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai- 400 057 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aadps5476M Assessee By .. Shri A.N. Shah, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Sumar Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 19-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 22-09-2017

…of 12.5%, which according to us, is quite reasonable. We are of the view that a profit rate of 12.5% will meet the end of justice in view of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. 4 N i t i n R aj m a l S ha h Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). We confirm the order of CIT(A) and the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22-09-2017. (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 22-09-2017 Sudip Sarkar /Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (A), M…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

…2017. 2.10 In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this C.O. No.06 to 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain 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…

ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan vs. Haresh M Valiya, Dombivali

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3515/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

…k are available with the assessee. Therefore cosindering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus…

ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rehan Shaikh, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaya & Shri Pawan Singh

…ases the result of GP would be 106.65%. After examining the entire facts of the case and the submissions made by assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to 6.65% on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). 5. We are also of the considered opinion that under Income Tax Act only real income can be taxed by the Revenue. We may further conclude that even if the transaction is not verifiable, the only taxable is the taxable income component and not the entire transaction. And after considering the facts of the case and the rival contentions o…

ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rehan Shaikh, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaya & Shri Pawan Singh

…ases the result of GP would be 106.65%. After examining the entire facts of the case and the submissions made by assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition to 6.65% on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). 5. We are also of the considered opinion that under Income Tax Act only real income can be taxed by the Revenue. We may further conclude that even if the transaction is not verifiable, the only taxable is the taxable income component and not the entire transaction. And after considering the facts of the case and the rival contentions o…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Panchavati Valves & Flanges P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit, Circle – 13(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, V. M/S Panchavati Valves & Flanges Pvt. Ltd.; Room No.218, Sumit Samarth Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, B-Wing, 503-A & B, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Behind Jain Mandir, Aarey Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400062

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT, Circle – 13(1)(2), 2nd Floor, v. M/s Panchavati Valves & Flanges Pvt. Ltd.; Room No.218, Sumit Samarth Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, B-Wing, 503-A & B, 5th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Behind Jain Mandir, Aarey Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400062 PAN: AABCP 3333 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Ms. Arju Garodia Date of Hearing : 17.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2017 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal i…

Fancy Wear, Kharghar vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1596/Mum/2016,िन आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन िनधा"रण वष" िन धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 धा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No.1597/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Fancy Wear Income Tax Officer 122, Megh Tower, 12Th Floor, Ward-24(3)(1), Now-31(1)(4) Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road Vs. Mumbai. Goregaon-E,Mumbai-400 063. Pan: Aacff 0727 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 20.09.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार / Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 21/01/2016 Of Cit(A)-42, Mumbai The Assessee Is In Appeal For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years (Ay.S). The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Readymade-Garments.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are,So,We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together.The Details Of Date Of Filing Of Return, Income Declared, Assessed Income, Dates Of Assessment Orders Etc. Can Tabulated As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Income Declared Assessment Dt. Assessed Income 2010-11 14.10.2011 Rs.2,15,171/- 26/03/2014 Rs.5.51Croress 2011-12 29.09.2011 Rs.1,05,187/- 26/03/2014 Rs.4.81 Croress

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एच” ” ” ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.1596/Mum/2016,िन आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िन िनधा"रण वष" िन धा"रण वष" धा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 धा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No.1597/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण वष" आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 ि…

Reafiqulla Niamat Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by these assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…en the AO asked the assessee to produce the parties, the assessee expressed his inability. Hence the AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of purchases. However, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Shah (356 ITR 451) and also some other decisions, the AO took the view that profit element involved in the purchases should be brought to tax. Accordingly he assessed 12.50% of the value of suspicious purchases as income of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has declared G.P at the rate of 5.77%. Accordingly he took the view that the addition sh…

Hans Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 9(2)(1) 407, Panchsheel 2A Raheja Aayakar Bhavan Township L.S. Rajeka Cross Road Mumbai – 400 020 No.3, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aabch5433N Appellant) .. Respondent) Ito 12(2)(3) Vs. M/S. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 407, Panchsheel 2A Raheja Mumbai – 400 020 Township L.S. Rajeka Cross Road No.3, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aabch5433N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neel Khandelwal Revenue By Shri V. Justin

…product for sales which have been accepted by the department. 6.5 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 v 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 (Jd)(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. Sanjeev Woolen Millls Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6.6 In view of the above discussion, it is seen that…

Vikas Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

…sing Officer completed assessment by adding 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which worked out to ` 36.11 lakhs. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee explained the ratio of decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simith P. Sheth (356 ITR 451) and submitted that addition should be around 6% only. The learned CIT(A) accordingly, restricted the addition to 6.5% of the value of non-genuine purchase. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since the assessee has agreed for addition @ 6…

Palamootil Verghese Mathew, Thane vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2902/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sh. Palamootil Verghese Mathew, Vs. The Dcit, Cir-3, 401, Wellington Ghodbunder Room No. 2, “B” Wing, Road, Hiranandani Estate, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane (W)- 400607 Road No. 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agopm9419M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Sh. S.K. Ramani (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Sh. Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26/02/2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-2, Thane, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 Read With Section 147 Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

…he Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that merely because its suppliers had not appeared before the A.O. or the ld. CIT(A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sumit P. Seth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 addition of 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. 8. So, in light of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases…

ITO WD 1(5), Kalyan vs. Vishal Kantilal Kanunga, Bhiwandi

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue as well as of assessee are dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…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 both the appeals of the Revenue. ITA Nos.2794 & 2795/M/2017 Shri Vishal Kantilal Kanunga ITA No.2794 & 2795/M/2017 (Assessee’s appeals) 7. Since we have already dismissed the appeals of the Revenue as ab…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Chemical India P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3721 & 3722/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dcit Central Circle-2(3), M/S Sanjay Chemical India R. No. 804, 8Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Kanmoor, House बिधम/ Old Cgo Building, M.K. Condominium, 281/287 Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Narsi Natha Street Mumbai-400009 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcs2929E (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

…la parties by the Sales Tax Department. We further find that the A.O in his ‘remand report’ which was called for by the CIT(A), had categorically placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and submitted that in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment the income of the assessee may be estimated at the rate of 12.5% of the aggregate of the bogus purchases, viz. purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the hawala parties. We find that though the assessee had submitted before the CIT(A) that the estimation of profi…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vitech Equipment P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer – 15(3)2, M/S. Vitech Equipment Pvt. Room No.15B, Ground Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.R-495/2, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Mumbai – 400 020 Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400 701 Pan: Aabcv 7339R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2017 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 5 M/s. Vitech Equipment Pvt. Ltd. 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 15.09.2017. (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) JUDICIAL MEMBER M…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Alan Electronic Systems Tax-15(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.517, 5Th Floor, 2Nd A-34, Floor, Crescent Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Road, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 042 Pan: Aabca 9296N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2017 O R D E R

…ancy 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 IT 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, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2017. (G. Manjunatha) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15.09.2017. * Ki…

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Alan Electronic Systems Tax-15(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.517, 5Th Floor, 2Nd A-34, Floor, Crescent Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, Maharshi Karve Road, Kanjurmarg (East), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 042 Pan: Aabca 9296N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2017 O R D E R

…ancy 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 IT 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, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2017. (G. Manjunatha) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 15.09.2017. * Ki…