CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Diamonds, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav

…Officer. But admittedly, suppliers parties were not available at the address furnished. Assessee did not maintain any stock register as evident from tax audit report. On these facts, applying the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case Simit Sheth (356 ITR 451), CIT(A) directed to Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% of the purchases made in respective years and he also directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income accordingly. Under facts and circumstances, the direction of CIT(A) is appropriate. Accordingly, same is upheld. 3. As a result, appeal filed by Revenue for A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed.…

ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Bhaskar Tike, Mumbai

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

…Vs. M' K Brothers (163 IT~ 249) (Gujarat high Court) 3. The CI.T Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) 4. Bala]i Textile Industries (p) Ltd. Vs. I.T.O. (49 ITO 177) Bombay 5. Gujrat High Court decision 'in the case of CIT vs. Simit P .Sheth(2013) 356 ITR 451. I have considered the case' laws and appellant's request to adopt G~P. and hold that since the Assessing Officer also had accepted the sales corresponding to the bogus purchases introduced, the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the G.P. @ 5% as the income escaped tax and delete the balance addition. This of ground of appeal :is partly allo…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

…le Delhi High Court in the case of Sunrise Tolling Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 206, Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Exim, 372 ITR 619 and Babulal Borana, 282 ITR 251 (Bom HC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Atma Prakash Batra, 340 ITR 177 and Sumit P Sheth, 356 ITR 451. It was further contended that no material was found during survey with regard to any bogus purchases nor books of account was rejected, therefore, when the AO has accepted the corresponding sales/utilisation of material, the disallowance of entire purchases is not warranted merely on the plea that suppliers were not existed at the addresses give…

ITO 25(2)(2)), Mumbai vs. Prathmesh Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3382/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2), Prathmesh Realtors बनाम/ C-11, Bldg., Room No. 106, A-101, Sweta Park, Daulat Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Road No. 2, Borivali (E), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 066 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifp 8580 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Pandian ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tarun Ghia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.03.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2013. 2. The First Issue Under Appeal (Raised Vide Grounds 1 & 2) Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Proportionate Deduction To The Assessee’S, A Builder & Developer, Housing Project By The Name ‘Prathmesh Heritage’, At Mira Road (E)

…s. 69C. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A), we find, has disallowed 15% of the impugned purchases, restricting thus the addition to income to Rs.3,41,440/-, following the decision in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj). Further, she regarded the same as a disallowance u/s. 37(1). The first question therefore that arises is if the ‘addition’ is of unexplained expenditure, deemed as income u/s. 69C, or would appropriately be disallowable as an expenditure u/s. 37(1). This is so as it may be appreciated that it is only in the case of the latter that the disa…

Deepa Manshani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Department’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…hat may be a reason for the seller to charge lower rates for unaccounted goods as compared to accounted goods. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Vijay Proteins Ltd. (supra) and CIT v/s Simit P. Seth, [2013] 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). As far as the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of ` 26,08,381, the 9 Deepa Manshani learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer. 6. In the rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, as far as the amount of ` 26,08,381 is concerned, the…