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.

38

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 68Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

comparable companiessection 145section 132(4)unexplained expenditureaccommodation entrysection 115jbsection 133(6)section 69csection 133aincriminating materialsection 131section 37

Judgments citing DCIT v. Adinath Industries

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

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1808/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

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…

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

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1807/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

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…

M/S. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2045/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 2045/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Central Circle-5, Phase-Iii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7255J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Jain, Ca & Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-24, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37

…unding circumstances are in favour of the appellant and action of the Ld. AO is without any basis. In addition to this we are also relying on the following decisions in support of our claim:- (A) Dy. CIT vs. Adinath Industries (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 262 :(2001) 252 ITR 476(Guj) (B) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228: (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). (C) Sagar Bose vs. ITO (1996) 56ITD 561 (Cal): (D)Milk Food (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT-(2000) 111 Taxman 323 (Del)(Mag): (E) Asstt. CIT vs. Rehmat Khan Chandan Khan and Party (1995) 52 TTJ (Jp) 203 (F) J.H. Metals vs. ITO (2001) 71 TTJ (Asr) (TM) 683 : (2001) 77 ITD 71 (A…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…s tax department acknowledge that purchases are genuine: 4 When Quantity tallied, No Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd v. 7 ITA No.1141/M/18- Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan addition can be made: ITO (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Bom) DCIT v. Adinath Industires (2001) : 252 ITR 476 (Guj) CIT v. M K Brothers (1987) : 163 ITR 249 (Guj) DCIT v. Adinath Industries (2001) : 247 ITR 35 DY.CIT V. BRAHMAPUTRA STEELS (P) LTD. [2002] 122 TAXMAN 32 (ITAT GAUHATI)]- 5 Purchase party not found but the Rajesh P Soni V/s ACIT 100 ITJ 892 sales against the purchase is (Ahd) accepted. Then the addition CIT V/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises cann…

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 6769/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalata
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], 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. 9. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal, Mumbai 9 I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017 Shri Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Bench, has deleted the addition made under se…

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 378/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)

…008, dated 27/01/2009], CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (CaL), HO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2- 2010], 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. 11. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has deleted the addition made under section 69C, in the following cases:- i) CIT v/s Nikunj Exi…

Hitesh H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4756, 4757& 4758/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11& 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 147

…008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], 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. 15. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'bleJurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal, 5585, 5586 & 5587 /Mum/2017& I.T.A. No. 5942/Mum/2014 Hitesh H. Shah & Others Mumbai Bench, has deleted the add…

Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5087/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

…in 205 CTR 444 (All.); (iii) Sri Ganpatraj A. Sanghavi Vs. ACIT, ITA. No. 2826/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) [order dated 5.11.2014]; (iv) Nisraj Real Estate and Export (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 209 – (031) – DTR – 0456 – TJAI; (v) CIT Vs. Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) [SLP dismissed] reported in 247 ITR (St.) 35; (vi) ACIT Vs. D. M. Brothers, 2010 – (044) – DTR – 0013 – All.; (vii) CIT Vs. Joginder Singh & Co. (2014) 361 ITR – 0078 (All.). 2.4 The ld. AR has furnished following party wise submissions in a tabular form :- “ M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PARTY NAME…

Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5062/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

…in 205 CTR 444 (All.); (iii) Sri Ganpatraj A. Sanghavi Vs. ACIT, ITA. No. 2826/Mum/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) [order dated 5.11.2014]; (iv) Nisraj Real Estate and Export (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 209 – (031) – DTR – 0456 – TJAI; (v) CIT Vs. Adinath Industries (2001) 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) [SLP dismissed] reported in 247 ITR (St.) 35; (vi) ACIT Vs. D. M. Brothers, 2010 – (044) – DTR – 0013 – All.; (vii) CIT Vs. Joginder Singh & Co. (2014) 361 ITR – 0078 (All.). 2.4 The ld. AR has furnished following party wise submissions in a tabular form :- “ M/s Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PARTY NAME…

Geolife Organics, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of all the assessees are allowed in part

ITA 3699/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Geolife Organics Vs. Acit – 23(2), Mumbai- 301, Marathon Max, 400051 L.B.S.Marg, Opp. Nirmal Lifestyle, Mulund(W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aahfg7722N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Vikram N. Chandan, Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5), Mumbai- Shop No.756/54, Nanubhai 400 007 Desai Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Acypc2583N Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Jabarsingh B Daiya, Vs. Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai – R.No.16, 1St Floor, Mulji 400 007 Madhavji Building, 160, C.P.Tank Road, Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Ahypd4454E Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Rajendra Nemichandji Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai – Chandan, 38, Ground Floor, 400 007 Alankar Building, 245/247, Khetwadi Lane, S.V.P. Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aeypc6575L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Geolife Organics, Mumbai & Others

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…008, dated 27/01/2009],CIT v. Veekay Prints (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 2557 of 2010, dated. 1/2/2012], Diagnostics v. CIT 334 ITR 111 (Cal.), ITO v. Totaram B. Sharma [Tax Appeal Nos. 1344/2008 & 1355/2008, dated 9-2-2010], 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. 11. On identical facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has deleted the addition made under section 69C, in the following cases:- M/s. Geolife Organics,…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. K. Ashok Kumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 6665/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala
Section 133ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.6665/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2005-06) ITO 14(2) (3) Earnest House, R. No. 306, ……………. Appellant 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 v/s K. Ashok Kumar & Co. Kilachand Mansion, 282, Kalbadevi Rd., Mumbai 400 002 ……………. Respondent PAN AAAFK2478A ITA no.6239/Mum./2013 (Assessment Year :2005-06) K. Ashok Kumar & Co. Kilachand Mansion, 282, ……………. Appellant Kalbadevi Rd., Mumbai 400 002 PAN AAAFK2478A v/s ITO 14(2) (3) Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3rd Floor, Nariman…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…he proposition that no addition could be made on the basis of the statement given by the third party if the appellant is not given opportunity to cross- examine- 361 ITR 206 (Del) CIT Vs. Sunrise Tooling System P. Ltd. 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT Vs. Adinath Industries Balaji Textiles Vs. DCIT 49 ITD 177 (Mum) 107 Taxmann 126 (ITAT Ahd) ITO Vs. Ghanshyam Steel Traders 122 Taxmann 32 (ITAT Gauhati) DCIT Vs. Brahmaputra Steels P. Ltd. ITO Vs. Agarwal Steel Traders 77 Taxman 95 (Chd) The appellant submits that without prejudice to the contention of (v) the appellant that there is…

Reshma Emterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3390/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…ing decisions: i) Of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Yusuf Fazlehusain Zaveri and Anr. Vs. Ajay Singh, ITO and Others 213 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6667/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…ing decisions: i) Of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Yusuf Fazlehusain Zaveri and Anr. Vs. Ajay Singh, ITO and Others 213 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90…

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6246/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

Section 143(3)Section 69

…ing decisions: i) Of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Yusuf Fazlehusain Zaveri and Anr. Vs. Ajay Singh, ITO and Others 213 ITR 712 (Bom.) ii) Of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. 8 Reshma Enterprises Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.) iii) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (sugar department) vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) iv) Of the Hon'ble Tribunal Calcutta 'B' Bench in the case of Sagar Bose vs. ITO [1996] 56 lTD 561 (Cal.) v) Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. U.M. Shah, Prop. Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90…

Addl CIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Indervadan H Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is allowed in part

ITA 103/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37

…Valves P Ltd (vi) Balaji Textile Industries (P) vs Third income Tax Officer (vii) Diagnostics vis. CIT reported in 334 ITR 111 Culcutta (viii) Gujarat Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs CIT reported in 316 ITR 274 (IX) Gujarat DCIT vs Adinath Industries reported in 252 ITR 476 (x) CtT vs M K Bras reported in 163 ITR 249 (Guj) (xi) 134 TT J 167 Delhi CTR Volume 50 Part VI page 39 I have gone through the above decision which supports the case of the appellant. In view of the above, the addition made by the Assessing officer is hereby deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 19. Against the above order of CIT(A), reven…

DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 3705/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-22, Central Range-5, Kapadia Building No. 2, Mumbai (Appellant) 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 (Respondent) Pan : Aabcc7451M : M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income- (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, Tax, Central Circle-22, 1St Floor, Kapadia Building Mumbai (Respondent) No. 2, 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 Pan : Aabcc7451M (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…entirety. In support of the assessee’s submissions that only GP is to be taxed in respect of cash sales, reliance was placed on the following judicial decisions : (1) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Balaji Textiles Ind. P. Ltd. (2) 254 ITR 259 (SC) Swastik Oil Traders (3) 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT v. Adinath Industries (4) 247 ITR (St) 35 Adinath’s SLP rejected 7.3 Per contra, the ld. DR emphatically supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR submitted that the grounds raised and the averments therein (supra) are identical to those raised before the ld. CIT(A) and rejected by her. It was argued by the ld. DR that…

M/S Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC - 22, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 2558/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-22, Central Range-5, Kapadia Building No. 2, Mumbai (Appellant) 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 (Respondent) Pan : Aabcc7451M : M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income- (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, Tax, Central Circle-22, 1St Floor, Kapadia Building Mumbai (Respondent) No. 2, 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 Pan : Aabcc7451M (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…entirety. In support of the assessee’s submissions that only GP is to be taxed in respect of cash sales, reliance was placed on the following judicial decisions : (1) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Balaji Textiles Ind. P. Ltd. (2) 254 ITR 259 (SC) Swastik Oil Traders (3) 252 ITR 476 (Guj) DCIT v. Adinath Industries (4) 247 ITR (St) 35 Adinath’s SLP rejected 7.3 Per contra, the ld. DR emphatically supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR submitted that the grounds raised and the averments therein (supra) are identical to those raised before the ld. CIT(A) and rejected by her. It was argued by the ld. DR that…