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 367,154 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

ACIT - 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sejal Glass Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5858/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sejal Glass Ltd. Dcit Circle-13(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, 173/174, Sejal Encasa, Mumbai. Opp. Bata Showroom, S.V. Road, Vs. Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Aadcs8659M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Circle-13(2)(1) M/S Sejal Glass Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 173/174, Sejal Encasa, Mumbai. Vs. Opp. Bata Showroom, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Aadcs8659M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Makhija (AR)For Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…enefit of VAT. We have observed that the assessee has neither come forward to substantiate their contention. 9. We have seen that the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth [(2013) 219 Taxmann 85 (Guj.)]. We have noted that the AO has not rejected the sale of the assessee. The books of account of assessee were also not rejected. The AO has not disputed the corresponding sales. However, the ld. CIT(A) considered the reply of assessee dated 05.09.2014 that assessee has not ITA No.5473 & 5858/M/2016- M/s Sejal Glass Ltd. transacted wi…

Sejal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5473/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sejal Glass Ltd. Dcit Circle-13(2)(1) 3Rd Floor, 173/174, Sejal Encasa, Mumbai. Opp. Bata Showroom, S.V. Road, Vs. Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Aadcs8659M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Circle-13(2)(1) M/S Sejal Glass Ltd. 3Rd Floor, 173/174, Sejal Encasa, Mumbai. Vs. Opp. Bata Showroom, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 Pan: Aadcs8659M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Makhija (AR)For Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

…enefit of VAT. We have observed that the assessee has neither come forward to substantiate their contention. 9. We have seen that the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition on the basis of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simith P. Sheth [(2013) 219 Taxmann 85 (Guj.)]. We have noted that the AO has not rejected the sale of the assessee. The books of account of assessee were also not rejected. The AO has not disputed the corresponding sales. However, the ld. CIT(A) considered the reply of assessee dated 05.09.2014 that assessee has not ITA No.5473 & 5858/M/2016- M/s Sejal Glass Ltd. transacted wi…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 4736/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

Section 133(6)

…ases (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%. Admittedly, t…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7717/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.10. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, the…

Kaysons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Cir.4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6935/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.10. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, the…

Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1508/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

Section 147

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 3.10. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, the…

Niwas Iron & Steel Co. Pltd, Thane vs. ITO 3(2), Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2336/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Niwas Iron & Steel Co. Ito 3(2), Pvt. Ltd., Thane Near Makhmali Talao, Vs. Agra Road, Thane Pan: Aaccn0810A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rahul R. Sarda, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul R. Sarda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.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), I direct the AO to take 12.5% of GP instead of 25%. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2017. (D.T. Garasia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 01.09.201…

Maheshkumar D. Chandak, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2732/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2732/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Mahesh Kumar D. Chandak, Dcit 15(2), 102/104 Praveen House, बिधम/ Mumbai 2Nd Floor, 1St Pathan Street, Vs. 4Th Kumbharwadi Mumbai- 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Acypc2181J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. Ghode, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

…. Chandak Vs. DCIT of profit embedded in the bogus purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforesaid parties. The CIT(A) thus taking support of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), wherein a similar issue was there before the High Court, as well as relying on the view arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj), wherein the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Bench in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428) was approved, thus concluded that there co…

ITO 18(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Prvain D. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7043/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-18(2)(5), Shri Pravin D. Jain, R. No.608, 6Th Floor, Prop. M/S. Rajendra Metal Earnest House, Nariman Point, Inds., Mumbai – 400 021 Vs. 225, Petit House, Shop No.4, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aabpj6897R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133ASection 148Section 69C

…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. 4 ITA No.7043/M/2016 & ITA No.7044/M/2016 Shri Pravin D. Jain 5. In this appeal, during the year, the AO found that assessee had made purchases from following parties: 1. M/s. Te…

Microplus Polymes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 838/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 838/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Microplus Polymers P. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ 42, Modi Street, Room No. 316, Ward 2(2)(3), Fort, Mumbai- 400 001 Vs. Mumbai- 400 020

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Mathuria, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…Realty Sales India P. Ltd, while for no purchases were made from M/s. Nandkishore Sales Agency. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case, therein took support of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court Gujarat in the case of Simit S. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 Microplus Polymers P. Ltd. 5 (Guj) and observed that now when the sales of the assessee had been accepted by the A.O, therefore, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could only have been added as the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) thus on the basis of his aforesaid observations restricted the addition in the hands of the assess…

Maheshkumar and Co. & Shantinath Roadways (Jv), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, the MA of the assessee is recalled and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1196/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

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

…oing by the nature of business of the assessee i.e. Civil Engineering & Contractor. We are of the view that the 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. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Hence, we direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 12.5% and compute the income accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of assessee is party allowed.” 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee now before us only requested that the similar issue was raise…

Secure Industries P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 15(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 839/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Secure Industries Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, C-33/34, Purvanchal Chsl, Ward 15(3)(3), Plot No.1E, Sector 1, Vs. R.No.452, Aayakar Bhawan, Airoli, Marine Lines, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Mumbai –20 Pan: Aabcp7593D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Secure Industries Pvt. Ward 15(3)(3), Ltd., Room No.452, 4Th Floor, C-33/34, Purvanchal Co. Op. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Maharshi Karve Road, Plot No.1E, Sector 1, Mumbai –400 020 Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Pan: Aabcp7593D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, A.R. &For Respondent: Miss N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 147

…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 estimate the profit at 12.5% of bogus purchases of Rs.45,05,608/-. 5 ITA No.839/M/2017 & ITA No.1338/M/2017 M/s. Secure Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.…

D & D Metalloys Corporation, Thane vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. D & D Metalloys Ito Ward 24(1)(5), Corporation, Income Tax Office, Room No.523, 5Th Floor, C/O Shri Deepak Madhav Gavade, Piramal Chamber, 01, Ganesh Prasad, Vs. Lalbaug, Vasai Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Sambhaji Nagar, Vasai, Thane-401 202 Pan: Aaafd0959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Miss. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Miss. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…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 do not have any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2017. (D.T. Garasia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dat…

ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Secure Industries P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1338/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Secure Industries Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, C-33/34, Purvanchal Chsl, Ward 15(3)(3), Plot No.1E, Sector 1, Vs. R.No.452, Aayakar Bhawan, Airoli, Marine Lines, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Mumbai –20 Pan: Aabcp7593D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Secure Industries Pvt. Ward 15(3)(3), Ltd., Room No.452, 4Th Floor, C-33/34, Purvanchal Co. Op. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Maharshi Karve Road, Plot No.1E, Sector 1, Mumbai –400 020 Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Pan: Aabcp7593D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Otwani, A.R. &For Respondent: Miss N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 147

…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 estimate the profit at 12.5% of bogus purchases of Rs.45,05,608/-. 5 ITA No.839/M/2017 & ITA No.1338/M/2017 M/s. Secure Industries Pvt. Ltd. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.…

Anand Baburao Bhosale, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-

ITA 7134/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-2006 Shri Anand Baburao Bhosale, The Ito 18(1)(4), Prop. Of M/S Unique Enterprises, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 315/4, Deen Building Compound, Mumbai - 400013 N.N. Joshi Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400011 Pan: Acipb1064H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Baburao BhosaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

…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 5 Assessment Year: 2005-2006 holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. 12. So in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in the cases referred above, we partly allow…

ITO 27(2)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Manoj S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result Revenues appeal stands allowed and the assessee's cross objection is stands dismissed

ITA 7524/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: Asst.Year 2008-2009 The Income Tax Officer Shri Manoj S.Mehta बनाम/ Ward 27(2)(2) M/S.Devankur Steel Mumbai. 31, Ahmedabad Street Vs. Carnac Bunder Mumbai . Pan : Acjpm8523H. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co No.95/Mum/2017 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 Shri Manoj S.Mehta The Income Tax Officer M/S.Devankur Steel बनाम/ Ward 27(2)(2) 31, Ahmedabad Street Mumbai. Vs. Carnac Bunder Mumbai . (Cross Objector) (""यथ"/Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.Dr) Assessee By : Shri Ketan N.Goda सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2017 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Wherein 2.3% Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchase Was Sustained By The Learned Cit(A) As Against 12.5% Sustained By The Assessing Officer, Thus Granting Relief Of Rs.37,91,959 To The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan N.GodaFor Respondent: Shri Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)

…Court in the case of H.M. Esufali Abdulali that the method to be adopted must be which is approximately nearer to the truth, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Simit P. Sheth (2013) (356 ITR 451 (Guj.) being the possible profit out of the purchases made through non-genuine parties known as tainted purchases and thereby, I hereby make an addition of Rs.45,70,828/- [12.5% of Rs. 3,65,66,625/-].” 4. Up on assessee's appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that these purchases were bogus as the assessee…

Bharat Bright Bars P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1282/Mum/2017 and ITA No

ITA 1284/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
Section 151

…rial in a grey market and manipulating the invoices by obtaining them from the above parties for accommodation in the books. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P.Seth (356 ITR 451). The learned CIT(A) concluded as under:- “In the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce any independent evidence to prove the purchases like transport bills, delivery challans etc. either during assessment proceedings or 4 ITA Nos.1282, 1283 & 1284/Mum/2017. M/s.Bharat Bright Bars Private Limited. during appellate proceedings. With r…

Bharat Bright Bars P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1282/Mum/2017 and ITA No

ITA 1283/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
Section 151

…rial in a grey market and manipulating the invoices by obtaining them from the above parties for accommodation in the books. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P.Seth (356 ITR 451). The learned CIT(A) concluded as under:- “In the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce any independent evidence to prove the purchases like transport bills, delivery challans etc. either during assessment proceedings or 4 ITA Nos.1282, 1283 & 1284/Mum/2017. M/s.Bharat Bright Bars Private Limited. during appellate proceedings. With r…

Bharat Bright Bars P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1282/Mum/2017 and ITA No

ITA 1282/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju
Section 151

…rial in a grey market and manipulating the invoices by obtaining them from the above parties for accommodation in the books. 6. Upon assessee’s appeal, the learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P.Seth (356 ITR 451). The learned CIT(A) concluded as under:- “In the instant case, the appellant has failed to produce any independent evidence to prove the purchases like transport bills, delivery challans etc. either during assessment proceedings or 4 ITA Nos.1282, 1283 & 1284/Mum/2017. M/s.Bharat Bright Bars Private Limited. during appellate proceedings. With r…

Hans Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1193/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Ms.Natasha (LA not filed)For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)

…e's product for sales which have been accepted by the department. 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) 4. ITO vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd)(Trib.) 5. Madhukant B. Gandhi vs. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 1B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.)(Trib,) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Millls Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) In view…