DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Vijay Grihanirman P. Ltd. Acit, 205, Marine Chambers, Central Circle-15 & 16, बनाम/ 43, New Marine Line, Mumbai Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacv2806N Shri Rajat Mittal-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Mani Jain & Shri Prateek Jain

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bds Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bds Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

M.S.Prints, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. M.S. Prints, Dcit-27(2), 105, Shiv Shakti Indl. Estate, Income Tax Office, T बनाम/ L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Ower No.6, Vashi Rly. Vs. Mumbai-400086 Station, Vashi, New Mumbai-400703 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalfm4121D

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate 15 M/s. M.S. Prints Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper…

Mohammed Salim F. Chohan, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2011-12 Mohammed Salim F. Acit-15(3), Shohan, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ 17/18, 4Th Floor, 28-Ali 1St Floor, Vs. Umer Street, Grant Road, Mumbai-400003 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aampc8124D

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavesh Jayantilal Shah, Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), C-60, 15Th Floor, Saibaba Bkc, Bandra, बनाम/ Enclave Tower, C-Wing, Bldg. Mumbai-400076 Vs. No.3, C.D Baug, S.V. Road, Neari City Centre Mall, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Admpr0197G

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Ambernath Steel Tube and Sanitary Store, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ambernath Steel Tube Income Tax Officer & Sanitary Store, Ward-2(1), बनाम/ Partner-Shri Vimal Adhia, 02Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Station Road, Ambarnath (W), Wayle Nagar, Maharashtra-421501 Khandakpada, Kalyan (W) "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7639L

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Mira Construction-Jv, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-32(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mira Construction-Jv, Acit-32(2), C/52, Ganjawala Apartment, Bandra, बनाम/ Svp Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400092 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aapfm7470B

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mehta Emporium Jewellers, Income Tax Officer-30(2)(3), 101, Hetal Arch. S.V. Road, Mumbai बनाम/ Opp. Natraj Market, Malad (W) Vs. Mumbai-400064 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aalfm2962N

…rmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 16 Mehta Emporium Jewellers 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Asstt CIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Late Manojkumar S. Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-17(2), Late Shri Manojkumar S. Room No.134, Gupta Through L/H बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Madhavi Gupta, Vs. M.K. Road, C/O- M/S Krishna Steel Mumbai-400020 Corporation, 110, First Floor, Arihant, Ahmedabad Street, Masjid Station (E), Mumbai-400009 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpg1861G

…wer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.10. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO 13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…st the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” ITA No. 1728, 1729, 2598, 11 2599 & 2600/Mum/2016 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd. 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration No.…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…st the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” ITA No. 1728, 1729, 2598, 11 2599 & 2600/Mum/2016 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd. 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration No.…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…st the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” ITA No. 1728, 1729, 2598, 11 2599 & 2600/Mum/2016 M/s. United Asphalters P. Ltd. 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration No.…

ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. N.K. Ferromate(India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) R. No.567, P. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 32/40, Krishna Baug, Vs. M.K. Road, Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, Mumbai-400020 V.P. Road, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), P. Ltd. R. No.567, बनाम/ 32/40, Krishna Baug, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, M.K. Road, V.P. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Ltd.

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that M/s N.K. Ferromate (India) Ltd. assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carryi…

ITO 32(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshan Gautam Salot, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-32(1)(4), Shri Darshan Gautam Salot, R. No.202, C-11, 2Nd Floor, A-3.4, Soni Tower, बनाम/ Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Ram Nagar, Borivali (East), Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400092 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Bmops4552G

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B/2, Parekh Mahal, 80, Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacs5390N

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 47 Shri Mithalal D Mutha 3.7 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration No…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

…under appeal. The decisions in these cases, are based on the facts of each case, hence, cannot be applied to the facts of the case under appeal. The ratio of decisions in the cases of Ramesh kumar & Co. vs.ACIT [2959/Mum/2014], DCIT v. Shree Rajeev Kalathil,[67 SOT 52], ITAT Mumbai, ITO v. Premanand 107 TTJ 395, Jodhpur, etc, are not applicable in the case of the appellant, as during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR, time and again, was asked to explain / justify the genuineness of purchases made from hawala parties, by filing their current confirmation, current m…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…e, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” ITA Nos.4373 to 4376//Mum/2016 11 2.7. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…