ITO v. Permanand

107 TTJ 395Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#2988 most cited

What is ITO v. Permanand authority for?

An addition to an assessee's income based solely on information from a sales-tax department that purchases were bogus is not sustainable if the assessee has discharged the primary onus by showing payments through account payee cheques and producing vouchers for sales.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Permanand · 107 TTJ 395 · ITAT · bogus purchases · sales tax department · account payee cheque · vouchers · primary onus · section 143(3) · section 145(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 44absection 145section 40genuineness of the transactiontotal incomecompanydocumentsection 143(3)businesspersonsection 14india

Judgments citing ITO v. Permanand

Mohanlal Chunilal Mutta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4692/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 250

…ng the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT (A) does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. So, confirming his order, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the AO. 8. ITO v. Premanand [2007] 107 TTJ 395 (Jd.), Since the AO had made addition merely on the basis of observations made by Sales-tax Department and had not conducted any independent enquiries, addition was to be deleted when the assessee had discharged primary onus cast on him by showing purchase in books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque, and producing vouchers of sale…

Dinesh Kumar Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Balotra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 374/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…payments made by way of I.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 7 Assessment Year: 2011-12 crossed cheques. Thus, as the falsification of purchases was not proved against the assessee, no disallowance was made on account of the alleged bogus purchases. d) ITO vs Permanand, 107 TTJ 395, ITAT (Jodhpur) An addition to the assessee's income merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales Tax Department that the purchases made by him from certain parties were bogus was not sustainable, as the payments were made through crossed cheques and the sale of those goods was properly vouched. e) Sanchita Marine Products (P) Ltd. vs DC…

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

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

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:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ng entries of payment, copies of invoices and stock statement giving complete details of movements of the stocks and the books of account not rejected and the sales not being doubted-the purchases cannot be treated as bogus. > Permanand Vs. Income Tax Officer 107 TTJ 395 (Jodh.) Income from undisclosed sources-Addition under s. 69- Alleged bogus purchases-AO received information from the Sales-tax Department that the purchases made by the appellant from two parties were bogus- Solely relying on the same, AO made addition under s. 69-Not justified-No addition can be made in the hands of the appellant merely on th…

Milind Kishenchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.10 raised by assessee is allowed and Ground No

ITA 3201/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmilind Kishenchand Agrawal, Sun Enterprises, 605/A, Dhawalgiri Building, Plot No.13, Sher-E-Punjab Society, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aacpa1340F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-20(2)(2), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Shailesh M. Bandi Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh M. BandiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 40Section 43BSection 69C

…d upon the following judicial pronouncement in his favour as under: i. Kishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v/s CIT, Mumbai – Bombay High Court IT APP No. 5604 of 2010 (2012) iii. ITO v/s Peranand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (jd) (Trib) ITO v/s Puspal Kumar Das (ITAT Kolkata) dt 19th December 2015 iv. v. Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT (ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014 dt. 28-11-2014 AY 2009- 10) vi. DCIT v/s Rajeev G Kalanthi ( ITA No. 6727/Mum/2012 dt 20-08-2014 AY 2009-10 vii. Ganpatraj A Sanghavi v/s ACIT (ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 dt. 05-11- 2014 AY 2009-10 viii. ACIT v/s Shi…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…ersons interested had no control, like the act of God or the King's enemies, these circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. " (iv) Enquiries made by the Sales-tax authorities: The Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Permanand reported in 107 TTJ 395 has held that 'No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of observations made by a third party. The addition rests mainly only on the observations of the Sales tax Department. The assessee was never associated with the enquiries made by the Sales Tax Department to that extent. The satisfaction of the AO himself is of the p…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…ersons interested had no control, like the act of God or the King's enemies, these circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. " (iv) Enquiries made by the Sales-tax authorities: The Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Permanand reported in 107 TTJ 395 has held that 'No addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of observations made by a third party. The addition rests mainly only on the observations of the Sales tax Department. The assessee was never associated with the enquiries made by the Sales Tax Department to that extent. The satisfaction of the AO himself is of the p…

Shri. Ravindra Bhaskar Deshmukh, Kalyan vs. Dy. CIT, Panvel

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1951/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1951 & 1952/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Ravindra Baskar बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Deshmukh L/H Neeta Ravindra Income Tax Panvel Circle, Vs. Deshmukh Panvel, Dist-Raigad. C/O Sh. Satyajit Zunjarrao 1003/2, Indraprastha Society, Adharwadi Chowk, Kalyan West-421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahcpd2323Gs (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.1951/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. Ita Nos. 1951 & 1952/M/2019 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…me judgements are hereby mentioned below. (i) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC) (ii) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (iii) CIT Vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (iv) ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 (v) Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi Vs. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench „B‟ dt. 23.02.2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum)(Trib) (vi) Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434) (SC) 6. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the end of interest of justice will meet if the profit ratio be estimate…

DCIT 12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. D R Coats Ink and Resins P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4858/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4858/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ M/S. D. R. Coats Ink & Dcit 12(2)(1) Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 230 New Sonal Link Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Industrial, Building No.2, Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Co. No.240/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 4858/Mum/2017) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. D. R. Coats Ink & बिधम/ Dcit 12(2)(1) Resins Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 230 New Sonal Link Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Industrial, Building No.2, Road, Mumbai-400020. Estate Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd8645A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramaniam सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 28.04.2017 Passed

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramaniamFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…/M/17 CO. No. 240/M/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 the case of (i) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) (ii) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (iii) CIT Vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (iv) ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib) (v) Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi Vs. ITO ITA. No. 1950/M/2009 Bench „B‟ Dated 23.02.2010 (AY 2005-06) & (vi) Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC). The CIT(A) has considered the Gross Profit (G.P) ratio of the bogus purchase items. Moreover, we also find that the issue has duly been covered with the decision of the ITAT in…

ITO, Ward 2(5), Kalyan vs. M/S Bharat Food Products, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2765/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 2(5) V. M/S. Bharat Food Products 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Bldg., Plot No. 02, Waco Compound Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada Industrial Area Kalyan (W), Kalyan Ulhasnagar - 421004 Mumbai - 421301 Pan: Aabfb1403H (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 143(1)Section 147

…ffidavit filed during safes-tax proceedings stating that he has not made any safes during the relevant year, particularly when no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the assessee, the addition was deleted. (iv) In the case of ITO v. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib): AO received information from the Sales Tax Department that the purchases made by the assessee from two parties were bogus. Solely relying on the same, AO made addition under s. 69. Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the basis of observations made by a third party. While making the assess…

Evas Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 3148/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…ome judgements are hereby mentioned below. (i) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC) (ii) CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (iii) CIT Vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (iv) ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (v) Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi Vs. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench „B‟ dt. 23.02.2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum)(Trib) (vi) Sanjeev Woolen Mills Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434) (SC) 5. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that to meet the interest of justice we restrict the addition to the extent of profit ratio @ 12.5%…

Sachin Anantray Ghelani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2078/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ Ito 27(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpg2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…essee placed reliance upon the decision in case of CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court), Tax Appal No. 689 of 2010, dated 22.04.2013, 334 ITR 111 Calcutta Diagnostics Vs. CIT, 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT Vs. M.K. Bros and ITO Vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib). The applicability of these decisions is required to be seen on the basis of the facts and circumstances of these cases which nowhere seem to be applicable in the instant case. The estimation profit upon bogus purchase to the extent of 12.5% nowhere seems unjustifiable, therefore, taking into account all the facts and circumstances, w…

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajul V. Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2575/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Rajeev HaritFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram
Section 143(3)Section 69

…al to show that the ownership of the investment is of the assessee. The onus is on the department to prove it before actually deeming the income relevant to the investment as that of the assessee. The Hon'ble Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Permanand (107 TTJ 395) wherein the Tribunal held that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of observations made by a third party. 14 Shri Rajul V. Vora 5.15 After considering the totality of facts, the rival submissions, the applicable law and on the basis of discussions mentioned above, I find merit in the argument of the appellant and…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, C-12, Row House No. 3, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Sheetal Nagar, Ashok Chakraborthy Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kandivali (East) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Afypm 7592 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Shah Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)

…ax in such cases as was held in the case of :- 1. CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) (HC) 2. CIT vs Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT vs Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) 4. ITO vs Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib.) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi vs ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 'B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.) (Trib.) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) In view of the above discussion, it is seen that the addition made by the A.O on account of alleged bogus purchase cannot be sustained fully in appeal. Having regard to fac…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1765/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…sment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd cases relied by the assessee company is not applicable because of the following reasons: a. ITO vs. Permanand reported in [2007] 107 TTJ 395 (ITAT jodh) b. DCIT vs. Sri Rajev G. Kalathil C.O. No. 06/Mum 2014 c. ACIT vs. Tarala R Shah in Reason: The Ld. A.O. has not solely relied on information supplied by Sales Tax Department. It is just one of the circumstantial evidences. A.O. has mentioned discrepancies in statement, searches in other group and confessional statement of one of the…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1764/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…sment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd cases relied by the assessee company is not applicable because of the following reasons: a. ITO vs. Permanand reported in [2007] 107 TTJ 395 (ITAT jodh) b. DCIT vs. Sri Rajev G. Kalathil C.O. No. 06/Mum 2014 c. ACIT vs. Tarala R Shah in Reason: The Ld. A.O. has not solely relied on information supplied by Sales Tax Department. It is just one of the circumstantial evidences. A.O. has mentioned discrepancies in statement, searches in other group and confessional statement of one of the…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1573/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…sment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd cases relied by the assessee company is not applicable because of the following reasons: a. ITO vs. Permanand reported in [2007] 107 TTJ 395 (ITAT jodh) b. DCIT vs. Sri Rajev G. Kalathil C.O. No. 06/Mum 2014 c. ACIT vs. Tarala R Shah in Reason: The Ld. A.O. has not solely relied on information supplied by Sales Tax Department. It is just one of the circumstantial evidences. A.O. has mentioned discrepancies in statement, searches in other group and confessional statement of one of the…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1572/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…sment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd cases relied by the assessee company is not applicable because of the following reasons: a. ITO vs. Permanand reported in [2007] 107 TTJ 395 (ITAT jodh) b. DCIT vs. Sri Rajev G. Kalathil C.O. No. 06/Mum 2014 c. ACIT vs. Tarala R Shah in Reason: The Ld. A.O. has not solely relied on information supplied by Sales Tax Department. It is just one of the circumstantial evidences. A.O. has mentioned discrepancies in statement, searches in other group and confessional statement of one of the…

M/S Shree Balaji Landmark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT 3(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 M/S Shree Balaji Landmark Hotel Private Limited Indore ::: Appellant Vs Acit 3(1) Indore ::: Respondent Appellant By Shri Pankaj Shah Respondent By Shri K.G. Goyal Date Of Hearing 4.6.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 8.6.2018 O R D E R Per Shri Manish Borad, Am

Section 143(3)

…Shri Balaji Landmark IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE Before Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’ble Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble Accountant Member A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Shree Balaji Landmark Hotel Private Limited Indore ::: Appellant Vs ACIT 3(1) Indore ::: Respondent Appellant by Shri Pankaj Shah Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal Date of hearing 4.6.2018 Date of pronouncement 8.6.2018 O R D E R PER SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Indore dated 30.06…

ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Mehta Infocom P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3685/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Income Tax Officer, Ward Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. 12(3)(4), Room No. 147A, 1 St A/301, Atul Apartments, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aafcm2000E Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, A/301, Atul Apartments, Ward 12(3)(4), Room No. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 147A, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh Chamaria, ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM The Income Tax Officer, Ward Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. 12(3)(4), Room No. 147A, 1 st A/301, Atul Apartments, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAFCM2000E Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, A/301, Atul Apartments, Ward 12(3)(4), Room No. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 147A, 1st Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : V Justin, DR Assessee by : Rajesh Chamaria, AR Date of heari…

Mehta Infocom P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3429/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Income Tax Officer, Ward Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. 12(3)(4), Room No. 147A, 1 St A/301, Atul Apartments, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aafcm2000E Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, A/301, Atul Apartments, Ward 12(3)(4), Room No. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 147A, 1St Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rajesh Chamaria, ARFor Respondent: V Justin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM The Income Tax Officer, Ward Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. 12(3)(4), Room No. 147A, 1 st A/301, Atul Apartments, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAFCM2000E Mehta Infocom (P) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, A/301, Atul Apartments, Ward 12(3)(4), Room No. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 147A, 1st Floor, Aayakar Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue by : V Justin, DR Assessee by : Rajesh Chamaria, AR Date of heari…