ITO v. Kanchanwala Gems

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…. assessee by cheque for those goods had been received, and further, books maintained by assessee had been accepted by AO and in fact addition was based on entries made in those books, it could be said that transaction was genuine. > ITO VS. Kanchanwala Gems 122 TTJ 854 "The assessee had furnished all the necessary information including name, address, PAN, RST/CST numbers and telephone numbers of the suppliers, supported with documents which was expected from a prudent purchaser to establish the genuineness of claimed transaction; besides the payments had been made through account payee cheques and goods purcha…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and CO of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 09/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2712/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) बिधम/ M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers Room No. 1928, 19Th Floor, Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Vs. Air India Building, Nariman 477/479 Maulana Azad Point, 400021. Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai-400004. Cross Objection No. 08/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2713/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(1) Room No. 3, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1928, 19Th Vs. 477/479 Maulana Azad Floor, Air India Building, Road, Gole Deval, Mumbai- Nariman Point, 400021. 400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafh0253L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) C.O. 8 & 9 /Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers

…prietor, Shrenik Trading co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) (iii) Brij Pal Sharma, 333 ITR 229 (P&H) (iv) Hi Lux Automotive (P) Ltd., 183, Taxman 260 (Del) (v) Rajesh P. Soni 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.) (vi) Babulal C. Borana vs. ITO ) 282 ITR 251 (Bom.) and ITO vs. Kanchwala Gems 122 TTJ 854. 7.3.4 In the case of Rushabh Trading Co., Rushabh Corporation, Hitesh Kantilal Shah HUF and Vimainath Traders, during the assessment proceedings, the appellant as well as the purchase parties had submitted necessary supporting documents related to purchases before the AO. Further, during the remand report proceedings also, the parties attended b…

Jajoo Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

…oned that the assessee argued that he has received share application money through bank and he is not aware of any Shirish Chandrakant Shah. Learned CIT(A) rejected this contention and referred the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kanchwala Gems (122 TTJ 854) which held that payment through cheque alone does not determined the genuineness of the transaction and the assessee has to prove its genuineness to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. He noted that the assessee is being assessed to tax and has shown some turnover and some income/loss. However in view of the specific statement of Shri S.C…

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

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

…CO. LTD (1998) 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT v. BASANT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (1999) 238 ITR 680 (CAL) Transaction duly supported by the evidence, no evidence that cash received back. Addition cannot be made. CIT v. M K BROS (163 ITR 249) ITO v. KANCHANWALA GEMS 122 TTJ 854 Identity, source of payment explained, bank payment, books of account accepted, then addition of book entries cannot be take place. BABULAL C BORANA v. ITO (282 ITR 251) Issue is also decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in case GANPATRAJSANGHI 33 I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd SHRI GANPATRAJ A. SANGHAVI v ACIT I.…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

…a Assurance Services Ltd v DCIT reported at 62 DTR 349/(2011) 12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum) ; The Hon'ble ITAT, PuneBench in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand v ACIT reported at 79,ITD 84 ' : The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of ITO v. Kanchanwala Gems reported in 122 TTJ 854 In the case of ITO vs. Permanand, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench reported in 107 TTJ 395 ' , In the case of R.K.Synthetics vs. ITO reported at 81 TTJ 909; the Hon'ble ITAT, Jcdhpur Bench Hon'ble Chandigarh IT,AT in the case of ITO v. Arora Alloys Ltd. (2012)[12 ITR (trib) 26.3], Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 84 (Pune) . Western I…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

…the money in cash to the appellant and the appellant made any net profit out of the,. same. In this regard, reference is made and reliance is placed on the following judgements:. i) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of ITO V. Kanchanwala Gems reported in 122 TTJ 854 has held under — The assessee had furnished all necessary information including name, address, PAN, RST/CST numbers and telephone numbers of the suppliers, supported with documents which was expected from a prudent purchaser to establish the genuineness of claimed transaction;, besides the payments had been made throug14-1,- account-payee cheques…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…the money in cash to the appellant and the appellant made any net profit out of the,. same. In this regard, reference is made and reliance is placed on the following judgements:. i) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of ITO V. Kanchanwala Gems reported in 122 TTJ 854 has held under — The assessee had furnished all necessary information including name, address, PAN, RST/CST numbers and telephone numbers of the suppliers, supported with documents which was expected from a prudent purchaser to establish the genuineness of claimed transaction;, besides the payments had been made throug14-1,- account-payee cheques…

ACIT-21(1), Mumbai vs. Karan Builders & Associated, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit- 21(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Karan Builders & Associates, 31, Jaihind Cottage, Shahji Raje Marg, Vile Parle – E, Mumbai - 57 Pan/Gir No. Aaffk5037N Appellant) .. Respondent)

…years of transactions. No addition can be made merely because supplier could not be located or were not 5 M/s. Karan Builders and Associates produced for examination as held in case of ABHISHEK EXPORTS (2010) 3 ITR (Trib) 823 (Ahd). In case of Kanchwala Gems 122 TTJ 854 (Jaipur), it was held that once the assessee has made the payments through cheques and accounted the purchase in the accounts books, a subsequent statement of the supplier that he was giving only accommodation bills would not be enough m absence of any other positive evidence to suggest that the goods was not purchased from the above named partie…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…TR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); 5 CO No.249/M/14 v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITAT; ix) Babulal C Borana V/s ITO (282 ITR 251) (Bombay High Court); x) CIT V/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd 2013 TIOL-04-HC-MUM-IT, 17.12.2012 While elaborating the applicability of provisions of section 69C of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) in para 6.3.8.1 has observed and held as under : “6.3.8.1. The Assessing Officer has app…