Himalaya Distributors v. ITO

10 SOT 319Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#11971 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also reported as

29 DTR 267

Issues it is cited on

section 108section 147(b)section 147(a)section 34(1)within four yearsfresh tangible materialsanctioning authorityapproval under section 151first proviso to section 147section 151(1)section 151(2)paper company

Judgments citing Himalaya Distributors v. ITO

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ich are the sole basis of addition, is recorded/ framed on the back of the assessee and not allowing them to put forth their case by countering the is seriously a violation of principle of natural justice, [26 ITR 775 (SC),125 TTR 713 (SC), 29 DTR 287 (Pune), 10 SOT 319 (Hyd) (TM)] The report of the DRI as stated by you is with regards to the over invoicing in import or under invoicing in export, does not say anything about genuineness of business of the It at the most can suppress the profits of the and has no more consequential bearings on the case. Your honour had proposed to make the additions solely relying…

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ich are the sole basis of addition, is recorded/ framed on the back of the assessee and not allowing them to put forth their case by countering the is seriously a violation of principle of natural justice, [26 ITR 775 (SC),125 TTR 713 (SC), 29 DTR 287 (Pune), 10 SOT 319 (Hyd) (TM)] The report of the DRI as stated by you is with regards to the over invoicing in import or under invoicing in export, does not say anything about genuineness of business of the It at the most can suppress the profits of the and has no more consequential bearings on the case. Your honour had proposed to make the additions solely relying…

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ich are the sole basis of addition, is recorded/ framed on the back of the assessee and not allowing them to put forth their case by countering the is seriously a violation of principle of natural justice, [26 ITR 775 (SC),125 TTR 713 (SC), 29 DTR 287 (Pune), 10 SOT 319 (Hyd) (TM)] The report of the DRI as stated by you is with regards to the over invoicing in import or under invoicing in export, does not say anything about genuineness of business of the It at the most can suppress the profits of the and has no more consequential bearings on the case. Your honour had proposed to make the additions solely relying…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…hraj P Doshi 43 com46 (Guj) 19. CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises(P) Ltd 35 com384 (Bom-HC) 20. Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide civil appeal No. 14828/20 13 on 30.08.20 13 21. Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 239 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) 22. P. Malliwaql vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd-ITAT) (TM) 23. RajmalLakhichand vs. ACIT 79 ITD 84 (Pune-ITAT) 24. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT V/s M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019 and also on the recent decision of Co- ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of V.R. Enterprises V/s ITO ITA No.4650/Mum/2018 order dated 16.05.2…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…hraj P Doshi 43 com46 (Guj) 19. CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises(P) Ltd 35 com384 (Bom-HC) 20. Confirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide civil appeal No. 14828/20 13 on 30.08.20 13 21. Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 239 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) 22. P. Malliwaql vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd-ITAT) (TM) 23. RajmalLakhichand vs. ACIT 79 ITD 84 (Pune-ITAT) 24. The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of PCIT V/s M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co ITA No. 1004 of 2016 dated 11.2.2019 and also on the recent decision of Co- ordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of V.R. Enterprises V/s ITO ITA No.4650/Mum/2018 order dated 16.05.2…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd 147 TTJ 308(Del-ITAT) iv) Shubh Laxmi Exports vs. ITO 10 DTR 281 (Jp-ITA T) (Trib) Onus is the on the Revenue to prove the payment to invoke Sec.69C i) Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 29 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) ii) M.P. Malliwal vs. JCIT 10 SOT 319 (Hyd-ITA T) (TM) iii) Rajmal Leknicnenc: vs. ACIT 791TD 84 (Pune-ITA T) Only profit embedded in the ingenuine purchase could be brought to tax. i) CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj-HC) ii) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj-HC) iii) CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj-HC) iv) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumer 2…

ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin Purshottam Bajaj, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ged his primary onus to substantiate the genuineness of the purchase. However, Ld.AO had not discharged the heavy onus casted upon him to prove contrary the facts and harshly made the addition of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. [29 DTR 267 (Pune), 10 SOT 319 (Hyd) (TM)J. 1.7 The appellant submits that no contrary evidence had been brought on record to justify that the appellant's purchases are ingenuine. The said 4 purchase parties irresponsibly gave a general statement, without stating name of the appellant, that it had issued only accommodation bills. Such general statement was recorded at back of…

Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ged his primary onus to substantiate the genuineness of the purchase. However, Ld.AO had not discharged the heavy onus casted upon him to prove contrary the facts and harshly made the addition of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. [29 DTR 267 (Pune), 10 SOT 319 (Hyd) (TM)J. 1.7 The appellant submits that no contrary evidence had been brought on record to justify that the appellant's purchases are ingenuine. The said 4 purchase parties irresponsibly gave a general statement, without stating name of the appellant, that it had issued only accommodation bills. Such general statement was recorded at back of…

Himalaya Distributors v. ITO (10 SOT 319) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax