G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT

104 TTJ 809Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#13197 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

person business interest

Judgments citing G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. Shri Ravi Arora, Indore

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…us and disallowable. - CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics P.Ltd., (2014) 220 Taxman 17 (Mag) (Guj) - Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.)(Trib) - CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (P)Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Bom) - G. G. Disamond International v. Dy. CIT, 104 TTJ 809 (Mum)(Trib) - ITO v. Surana Traders, (2005) 92 ITD 212 (Mum)(Trib.) - Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd. V. ITO, (1994) 49 ITD 177 (Mum) Without prejudice to above total disallowance of salary and taxing Gross revenue is not justified. Attention is invited to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT, (2005) 279…

Ratn & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1981/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalratan & Co. 5 – Navyug Sagar, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aadfr3713J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400007. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 11.09.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering That The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ld. Assessing

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…u/s 44AB of the Act and the same is perfectly tallied with books of accounts. It is fundamental accounting principal that once the sale is accepted than the purchase cannot be doubted. Reliance is placed in case of G.G. Diamond International v Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mum.] (Trib.) and Balaji Textile Industries (P) Ltd vs. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 177 (Mum.) The quantity details and movement of goods is perfect tallied hence there is no defect 6 ITA No. 1981/Mum/2021- Ratan & Co. and mismatch in the books of accounts of the assessee. Reliance is placed on ITO, Ward 2(5), Rajkot v. Girish M. Mehta [2007] 105 ITD 5…

ACIT. Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Eipr India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7471/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 3(1)(2) V. M/S. Eipr India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor G-11, Tulsiani Chambers Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fress Press Journal Marg Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaace9094M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi

Section 14ASection 69C

…disputed receipt of income for the appellant from utilization of Informant reports. It has been held by jurisdictional courts that once sales of the assessee are accepted purchase cannot be doubted. In the case of G. G. Diamond International v Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mum.) (Trib.) it was observed that it is not case of the Revenue that the assessee is not maintaining books of account. The purchases are recorded in the books of account. They accepted and confirmed the sale. To hold otherwise, there should be some evidence in the possession of the Revenue. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of ev…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. ACIT 4(2)(1) Ltd. 6th floor, Room no. 642, बिधम/ 308/382, 1st floor, NNS Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Building, Chira Bazar, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Kalabadevi, Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCV5319C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi,DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.02.2020 Date of Hea…

DCIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Arihant Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5899/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5899/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-25(3) Arihant Enterprises Room No. 308, C-11 C-6, Hasmukh Chs Ltd. बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Near Mandapeshwar Industrial Estate Vs. Mumbai – 400 051 Mcf, Uday Marg, Borivali(W) Mumbai – 400 092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahfa-0915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Co. No.272/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Arihant Enterprises Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-25(3) C-6, Hasmukh Chs Ltd. Room No. 308, C-11 बनाम/ Near Mandapeshwar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Mcf, Uday Marg, Borivali(W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahfa-0915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Hitesh P.Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…ed its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers of sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained. The same position has been taken in the case of G.G.Diamond International vs. DCIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mumbai). I also find merit in the contention of the appellant that no opportunity for cross examination of the said four sellers has been provided to the appellant despite specifically asking for the same. The appellant is valid in raising the issue that in a scenario where no cross examination has been allowed, the affidavits could very well be…

ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai

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

ITA 902/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Ito 33(1)(1), Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada R.No.304, 3Rd Floor 403, God Gift, A Wing Bldg No.C-11, Adarsh Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhawan Adarsh Dugdhalya Lane Bkc, Bandra (E) Malad (E) Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabpg3923F Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 40

…tegorically held that If the Assessee's sales are accepted there is no reason or legal basis to deny the corresponding purchases in re absence of rejection of books of accounts and book results. Further in the case of G.G. Diamond International Vs. DCIT(2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mumbai Tribunal) the Hon. ITAT has observed that Once the sales are accepted purchases can not be doubted. In the Appeal before the Assessing officer has accepted the Books of account of the Assessee and the results thereof and therefore in my considered opinion the Assessing officer is not justified in disallowing the Appellants claim of Purcha…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…to the site is one of the deciding factor to be considered for resolving the issue. Proof of movement of goods is not in doubt. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the purchases cannot be treated as bogus. iv) G. G. Diamond International v Dy. CIT (2006) 104 TTJ 809 (Mum.) (Trib.) It is not case of the Revenue that the assessee is not maintaining books of account. The purchases are recorded in the books of account. Payments are made by cheque to the immediate purchasers. They accepted and confirmed the sale. To hold ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT ot…