Commissioner of Income Tax v. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd (in Liquidation)

ASSTT. CIT-CC-1(1), MUMBAI vs. AJIT SOHANLAL JAIN , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…scrutiny. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the additions made by the AO in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ.), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence.” 8. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has simply deleted the addition made by the As…

ASSTT. CIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI vs. AJIT SOHANLAL JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…scrutiny. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the additions made by the AO in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ.), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence.” 8. Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has simply deleted the addition made by the As…

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

…ess to produce the parties. Thereafter the AO, by relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court reported in (2002) 178 CTR (Rajasthan) 420 and Tribunal’s orders in case of CIT vs. M/s. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (Raj.), M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (ITA No.134/JP/2002 dated 10.12.2003, CIT vs. Saravana Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 72 DTR (Kar), CIT vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Del.), Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (1989) 180 ITR 288 (All), Khandelwal Trading Co. vs. ACIT 55 TTJ (Jp) 261 and Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ (Ahd) 76 : 58 I…

ASSTT. CIT - CC-1(2), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL BUILDHOME P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…crutiny. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the additions made by the AO in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Lid (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence.” 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has taken accommodation entries from PKJ group and he brought to our noti…

ASSTT. CIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE RATNA MANGAL JEWELS P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Shree Ratna Mangal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.302, 3Rd Floor 903, 9Th Floor Chinatamani Arcade, Dhanji Street Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai - 400003 Old Cgo Building Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Pan: Aapcs6589J Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor A.1701-1702, Lotus Corporate Park Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pratishtha Bhavan Old Cgo Building Annexe Pan: Aagcm5420M Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 1(1) V. M/S. Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., 903, 9Th Floor 202, 2Nd Floor Chinatamani Arcade Pratishtha Bhavan Opp. Bombay Bullion Building Old Cgo Building Annexe Dhanji Street, Mumbai - 400003 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcm2672M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…crutiny. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the additions made by the AO in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Lid (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and it is not necessary for the Department to bring a positive evidence.” 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has taken accommodation entries from PKJ group and he brought to our noti…

ASSTT. CIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. STAR ONE REALCON P. LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the addition made by the A.O. in view of the judgment by the Apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ.) upholding the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record. The Department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that transaction in question is bogus. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in consequence to the question of law at 1 (supra), the ld. C…

ASST CIT CC 1 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEY TECH, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

…d in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not upholding the addition made by the A.O. in view of the judgment by the Apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Golcha Properties Put Ltd (in Liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (RAJ.) upholding the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record. The Department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that transaction in question is bogus. 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in consequence to the question of law at 1 (Supra), the Ld.…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH C. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-19(2)(3), Mumbai Vs Shri Mukesh C Sanghvi Prop M/S Rajendra Steel & Alloys Room No.6, Ground Floor, 79, 2Nd Pathan Street, 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Anzps6511Q Appellant Respondednt

…ccable source which has the primary duty of taxing a purchase-sale transaction in the form of admission of the so-called seller about issuing bogus bills of purchase/sale which was held in the case of CIT vs Golcha properties Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (Raj.) it is held that the Department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus. 6.9 Therefore, considering the material on record, conclusion can be drawn on relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs La Medica, 117 Taxman 628 (2001). In this case, the assessee was a manufacturer of all…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

…Vs. Prashant (P) ( 1994) 121 CTR (Cal)20, has held that even payment of account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. d). In the case of CIT Vs. Golcha properties Pvt Ltd. ( in liquidation ) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (Raj) , is(sic. it) was held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 on the basis of primary farts on records and the revenue is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchase are bogus. e). In this case, there is uncontroverted evidence from an impeccable sources which has the primary…