How many judgments cite DCIT v. Adinath Industries?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Adinath Industries (252 ITR 476), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Adinath Industries come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 69C.

DCIT v. Adinath Industries

252 ITR 476High Court2001#3091 most cited

What is DCIT v. Adinath Industries authority for?

An assessee cannot be penalized for the actions of its supplier, nor can it be expected to know the commercial rationale behind how a supplier operates its bank account. The assessee is not burdened with the task of investigating the genuineness of the seller or their business transactions if they have provided evidence like bank statements and purchase bills to prove the genuineness of their own purchases and the Assessing Officer has not doubted their sales.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Adinath Industries · 252 ITR 476 · section 133(6) · section 143(3) · section 68 · section 69C · proof of purchases · genuineness of transactions · supplier's actions · onus on assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

comparable companies section 145 section 132(4)unexplained expenditure accommodation entry section 115jb section 133(6)section 69c section 133a incriminating material section 131 section 37

Judgments citing DCIT v. Adinath Industries

Smt. Reeta Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4258/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ecisions in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.)Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.)Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt.CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.)Ltd. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.3.3 Though, the appellant was not able to produce the concerned party before the Assessing Officer, fact remains that the appellant produced bank account statement, purchase bills, etc., to prove the genuineness…

Income Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar vs. Reeta Goel, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4094/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

Principle Commissioner O Income Tax-42, Mumbai vs. Sunil Govind Agre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1615/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1615/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pr. Commissioner Of बिधम/ Sunil Govind Agre Income Tax-42 Room No.21, Plot Vs. Ito-42(1)(5), Mumbai No.255, Sankalp Society, Room No.945, 9Th Floor, Sector-2, Charkop, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Kandivali, West, Bandra, East, Mumbai- Mumbai-400067. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aegpa0962H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Rakh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,63,62,790/- Which Was Added By The Ao Since The Assessee Failed To Prove The Purchases As Genuine. & Ld Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Restricting The Addition At Rs.4,99,264/- I.E. 0.31% Gross Profit (Gp) Of Rs.16,10,52,959/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Rakh (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…m/2013 dated 27.03.2015. (vi) DCIT Vs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil (ITA. No.6727/Mum/2012 dated 20.08.2014. 5. Ld CIT(A) took note of the judicial precedent, and noted the same and held as under: - “The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries in 252 ITR 476 (Guj) held that assessee cannot be penalized for the action of supplier and that the assessee cannot be expected to know the commercial rationals on how the suppliers operates its bank account. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional 9 A.Y. 2011-12 Sunil Govind Agre High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. in 372 ITR 619 (Bom) held that assess…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. Pan No. Aamcs 4421 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 & 115/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15) (Physical hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Vs. A-26, Central Park, GIDC, Surat. Pandesara, Surat-394221. PAN No. AAMCS 4421 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue IT(SS)A Nos. 44, 45, 50 & 122/Srt/2021 (Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15) D.C.I.T., Siddhi Vinayak Knots and Prints Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Surat. A-26, Central Park, GID…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Printers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)

DCIT (CC) 7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. La Trendz Fabrica Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…following judicial decisions wherein similar view has been upheld:  Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the recently reported case of M/S Andaman Timber Industries Ltd Vs CIT Cen Excercise, Kolkota II (Appeal No 4228 OF 2006)  ITO v. Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 476(Guj.) (SLP dismissed) (2001) 247 ITR (St) 35  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Lalwani v. ITO (2011) 196 Taxman 82 C.O. Nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25/MUM/2022 M/s. La TrendzFabrica Pvt. Ltd., 19. It was also contended that it is not the case that the job workers are ghost entity and there is nowhere about of these parties. Most of these part…

M/S Silvex & Co., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Meena (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…results as compared to earlier years. Further neither the ld.AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has doubted the trading results and not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) than making the adhoc addition is bad in law. Reliance is also placed on the following cases: 252 ITR 476 DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries (Guj.) 13 M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Held, that the Assessing Officer could have unearthed the fact that the seller was a bogus party by recording the statement of the bank manager, accountant or cashier or the party who introduced the seller to the bank but without any evidence and merely on the basis of withdraw…

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2316/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Dcit(Ltu-I), Mumbai Vs M/S Cmi Fpe Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-I, World Trade Plot No.64, Mehta House Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 Road No.13, Midc , Andheri (E) 005 Mumbai-400 093 Pan : Aaacf0252G Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ineness by furnishing the details of cheque, the bank account number, the invoices, delivery challans and other details evidencing the purchase of M.S. plates to the tune of Rs.35,78,377/-. The assessee has relied on the decision of DCIT vs Adinath Industries 252 ITR 476 (Guj), which held that the assessee cannot be penalised for the action of supplier and that the assessee cannot be expected to know the commercial rationale on how this supplier operates its bank account which was considered by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nikunj Ex…

DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ies categorically being denying in having business dealings with the assessee company, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent assessee, when there are material on record to prove otherwise. (ii) CIT v. Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 476(Guj.) (SLP dismissed) (2001) 247 ITR (St)35 AO issued notice on ground that purchase made by assessee were bogus. Duty of authorities to make necessary inquiry before arriving at conclusion. Court held that the AO could have unearthed the fact that seller was a bogus party by recording the statement of the bank manager, accountant or cashier or t…

Shri Ankush Gokhroo, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 387/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Diamond & Color Stones Through His Proprietorship Concern

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…tals & Minerals Ltd. vs. JCIT (2004) XXXII T.W. 54 (ITAT, Jaipur). • Shiv Trading Co. Vs. ITO, 30 Tax World, 117(Jaipur). • Raunaq Finance Co. vs. JCIT 141 Taxman 72 (Raj.) • DCIT vs. Brahmaputra Steel (P). Ltd. 76, ITI 44 (Guj). • DCIT vs. Adinath Industries 252 ITR 476 (Guj.). 3.1 Alternatively, the ld. AR has submitted that the addition made U/s 68 of the Act on account of trade addition is unlawful, illegal and not justified but in any case only a profit element in respect of unverifiable 6 Shri Ankush Gokhroo vs. ITO purchase can be added instead of making the entire amount of trade creditors as income.…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Smt. Beena Pillai, JM Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. M/s.Anantha Refinery The Deputy 1553/Bang/13 2006-07 Pvt Ltd., Commissioner of Siddapura Village, Income Tax, Bangalore Road, Central Circle-1(2), 1554/Bang/13 2007-08 Challakere-577522 Bangalore [PAN: AABCA5553E] Appellant by : Shri K.R.Pradeep & Ms. Girija, G.P. - Advocates Respondent by : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M: The assessee origina…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

ITO-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aeroflex Fittings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 147

…placed on Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.)Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v, M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt. CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.)Ltd. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.4 Non compliance of some of the parties may be due to the time gap and possible change in address. However, fact remains that the appellant produced bank account statement, purchase bills, etc., to prove the genu…

ITO-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aeroflex Fittings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1687/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(1)Section 147

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Discount Co. Ltd.1, (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC); (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Mere suspicion, no matter howsoever strong, is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus. Case Laws for Reference DY. CIT v. ADINATH INDUSTRIES (2001) 252 ITR 476 (2002) 120 TAXMAN 822 (GUJ) 29 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd The Assessing Officer observed that purchases made by assessee from XGT' were fake and latter was only a billing agent, its S.T. Registration had been cancelled and payments made by bearer cheques were withdrawn on same day- Assessee, however, submitted all details…

ACIT-21(1), Mumbai vs. Anilkumar Nandlal Verma, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1882/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-21(1) बिधम/ Anilkumar Nandlal Verma R. No.116 1St Floor Piramal International Steel Fabricator Vs. Chambers Parel, Mumbai- 36 Evergreen Estate Shakti 400012. Mill Lane, Mumbai-400011. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv7748N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Umesh Vishwakarma सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Umesh VishwakarmaFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…cally held that the 100% addition is not justifiable. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decisions in the case of Babulal C. Borana Vs. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 251 (Bom), CIT Vs. M.K. Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj), CIT Vs. 4 A.Y.2010-11 Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 476 and others which have been mentioned in the orders. However, It is held by the different authorities that the profit element in connection with the bogus purchase is required to be added to the income of the assessee. Anyhow taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we find it justifiable to restrict the addition to the extent of 30% o…

M/S. Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1286/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Jasmine Design Pvt. Ltd. The Ito Vs. 50, Shambha Ji Marg Ward- 5 (1) Inderpuri Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aadcj 0715 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -2, Jaipur Dated 31-10-2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’(1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Have Erred In Not Accepting The Valuation Report Of The Departmental Valuer Shri Ballabh Mayach Dated 29-11-2014 Submitted By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR

Section 133A

…lied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. as well as decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 12 M/s. Jasmine Design Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO,Ward- 5(1), Jaipur the case of CIT vs Adinath Industries (2001), 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) and the SLP filed by the Department was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adinath Industries,247 ITR (St.35. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the AO has specifically asked the assessee to produce the parties for verification but the assessee has failed to produce these parties. Therefore, the p…

ITO-32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Harish Kantilal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 471/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaito-32(1)(5) Vs. Harish Kantilal Jain Room No.203, 2Nd Floor 404, Bhakti Apartment C-11, Bandra Kurla Complex Opp. Jain Temple Bandra(E) Jambli Galli Mumbai-400 051 Borivali (West) Mumbai-400 092

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…is placed on Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.)Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CJT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.)Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.)f Asstt.CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (R)Ltd, Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj,), CIT v- Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CTT v. Rajesh P, Soni [Tax Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.3 Though, the appellant was not able to produce the concerned parties before the Assessing Officer, fact remains that the appellant produced bank account statement, purchase bills, etc., to prove the genuineness…

ITO-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Fanatic Fashion Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vizti KothariFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase

Section 143(3)

…placed on Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt.CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.)Ltd. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No.1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.3 However, fact remains that the appellant produced bank account statement, purchase bills, etc., to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not doubted t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1809/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT (A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions there is no such error in the order of the CIT (A) which requires correction.” (2) DCIT vs. Adinath Industries 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) in which Gujarat High Court held as under:- An information supplied by an agency of the department cannot be held as clinching evidence without independent inquiry and corroboration. Information may be useful for further investigations or corroboration but on its own, it f/cannot be held as clinching evidence. Quantities of purchases and…