ITO v. Permanand

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Lab Devices India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 12(3)(3) Vs. M/S. Lab Device India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, 112, Atlanta Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. W.E. Highway, M.K. Road, Near Virwwani Industrial Mumbai – 400 020 Estate, Goregaon (East) Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No: Aaabcl 0636 K Appellant .. Respondent

…tax in such case as was held in the case of: 1. CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC). 2. CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) 4. ITO v. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (JD)(Trib) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi v. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench ‘B’ dt. 23.02.20100 (AY 2005- 06)(MUM.) (Trib.) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6.5 In view of the above discussion it is seen that the addition made by the A.O on account of alleged bogus purchases cannot be sustained fully in appeal. Having regards t…

DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Paxchem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bled.C.I.T Circle 7(3)(1) V. M/S. Paxchem Ltd., Room No. 669A, Plot No. A-34, T.T.C. Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Pawane, Mumbai – 400 710 M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaccp 0919 J

…ns made on the basis of statements made before the Sales Tax authorities alone cannot be evidence that bogus bills had been issued to the assessee, the payments having been made by way of account payee cheques. In its decision in the case of ITO v. Permanand (107 TTJ 395), the Hon'ble Jodhpur Tribunal had held that additions made on the basis of observations made by the Sales Tax authorities without making independent inquiries could not be sustained. This is precisely what has happened in the case under consideration. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 2…

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

…s, 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 mailing addresses, their bank statements an…

Manish D. Mandhania, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 33(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…tax 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 0d) (Trib.) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi vs ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 'B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.) (Trib.) 5 ITA No.1211/Mum/2017. Shri Manish D.Mandhania. 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 AO on account of alleged bogus purchase cannot be…

Hans Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito 9(2)(1) 407, Panchsheel 2A Raheja Aayakar Bhavan Township L.S. Rajeka Cross Road Mumbai – 400 020 No.3, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aabch5433N Appellant) .. Respondent) Ito 12(2)(3) Vs. M/S. Hans Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 407, Panchsheel 2A Raheja Mumbai – 400 020 Township L.S. Rajeka Cross Road No.3, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aabch5433N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neel Khandelwal Revenue By Shri V. Justin

…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 v 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.) 5. Sanjeev Woolen Millls Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6.6 In view of the above discussion, it is seen that the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchase cannot be sustained fully in appeal. Having regard to…

Rajendra Chandulal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…tax in such cases as was held in the case of – 1. CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355ITR 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 Qd) (Trib.) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi vs ITOITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 'B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.) (Trib.) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs CIT (2005) 279ITR 434 (SC) 4 ITA No.2937/Mum/2017. Shri Rajendra Chandulal Shah. In view of the above discussion, it is seen that the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchase is fai…

Hans Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…o tax 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 v Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) 4. ITO vs. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd)(Trib.) 5. Madhukant B. Gandhi vs. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 1B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.)(Trib,) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Millls Vs. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. 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…

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)

…h Court. (4) The Hon'ble Gujarat High 'Court in the case of CIT v M.K.Brothers reported at 163 ITR 249 (5) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Radhika Creations (ITA No.692/2009) The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of ITO v Permanand ' reported at 107 TTJ 395 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported; at 334 ITR 111 The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 46 DTR 496 / 134 TTJ 167 (Delhi) 5 M/s. Metcraft Engineering Corporation The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Free India Assurance Ser…

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

…when the genuineness of the export of those goods by the assessee had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, thus, rightly deleted the addition" ii) In the case of ITO vs. Permanand, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench reported in 107 TTJ 395 has held: "In the instant case, the addition rested mainly only on the observation of the Sales-tax Department. The assessee was never associated with the enquiries made by the 5ale5-tax Department to that extent. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer himself is of prime importance while making assessment of an income and these duties cannot…

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

…when the genuineness of the export of those goods by the assessee had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, thus, rightly deleted the addition" ii) In the case of ITO vs. Permanand, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench reported in 107 TTJ 395 has held: "In the instant case, the addition rested mainly only on the observation of the Sales-tax Department. The assessee was never associated with the enquiries made by the 5ale5-tax Department to that extent. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer himself is of prime importance while making assessment of an income and these duties cannot…

DCIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…ITO, 282 TR 251(Bom) vi) Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT, 67 SOT 52(Mum Trib) vii) CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 220 taxman 17 (guj) viii) CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises pvt. Ltd., 216 taxman 171 ix) CIT Vs. M.K.Brothers, 163 ITR 249 x) ITO Vs. Premanand, 107 TTJ 395 xi) Arora Alloys Ltd., 370 ITR 372 8. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in their respective orders as well as considered the ratio laid down by various decisions cited by ld. DR and AR during the course o…

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

…ITO, 282 TR 251(Bom) vi) Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT, 67 SOT 52(Mum Trib) vii) CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 220 taxman 17 (guj) viii) CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises pvt. Ltd., 216 taxman 171 ix) CIT Vs. M.K.Brothers, 163 ITR 249 x) ITO Vs. Premanand, 107 TTJ 395 xi) Arora Alloys Ltd., 370 ITR 372 8. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We had also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by AO and CIT(A) in their respective orders as well as considered the ratio laid down by various decisions cited by ld. DR and AR during the course o…

Allied Engineers and Elastomers, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S Allied Engineers & Income Tax Officer-18(1)(1), Elastomers, Earnest House, बनाम/ 404-A, Waghwadi, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7945H

…ties and merely providing bogus bills/accommodation entries. On the basis of this information, the case of the assessee was reopened. Before the ld. Assessing Officer, furnished submissions and relied upon various decision like Income Tax Officer vs Parmanand 107 TTJ 395 (Jodh), Jagdamba Trading Company vs Income Tax Officer, 16 SOT 6 (Jodh), Indian & Eastern News paper society vs CIT 119 ITR 996 (SC), Coca-cola Export Corporation vs Income Tax Officer 231 ITR 200 (SC), CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), CIT vs Sfil stock broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del.) and GMR Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT 134 ITD 668…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

…higher than normal purchases can be added. In view of all these details it was submitted that AO was not justified in making addition for the alleged purchases. Reliance was placed by ld. AR on the following judicial pronouncements :- i) ITO vs. Permanand [107 TTJ 395 (Jodh); ii) DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, [ITA 6727/M/2012(Mum); (iii) ITO vs. D.N. Shah & Co. [2 TTJ 1217 (Ahd)]; iv) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers [(1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj)] v) M/s Imperial imp & exp vs ITO(ITA 5427/Mum/2015) vi) Deepak Popat Lal Ghada vs. ITO(ITA 6203/Mum/2013) vii) DCIT vs. Shri Jitendra S. Motani [ITA 6178/M/2007 (Mum)] CIT vs.…

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2) M/S. Pankaj Enterprises 46-A, 2Nd Floor, Ganjawala Apt. No.2 C-11 Bldg., Room No.106, Pratyakshakar Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Ganjawala Lane,Borivali(W),Mumbai-92. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 2176 J (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" Revenue By: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.05.2013,Of The Cit (A)-35, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal.None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee .We Are Deciding The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Departmental Representative (Dr).

…ody could deny the existence of the parties, that the AO had not brought any material on record to suggest that the payments were made to purchase parties were received back in cash by the assessee.He referred to the cases of M.K. Brothers (supra), Premanand (107 TTJ 395), Shanti Kumar Choradia(128 TTJ708),YFC Project Private Ltd. (46 DTR496) and other cases decided by the Tribunal. He further observed that mere appearance of a purchase party on the website of State Government did not turn a genuine purchase into nongenuine transaction, that issue had to be decided after considering the overall circumstances of t…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

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

…were also filed before the lower authorities. In view of all these details it was submitted that AO was not justified in making addition for the alleged purchases. Reliance was placed by ld. AR on the following judicial pronouncements :- i) ITO vs. Permanand [107 TTJ 395 (Jodh); ii) DCIT vs. Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil, [ITA 6727/M/2012(Mum); (iii) ITO vs. D.N. Shah & Co. [2 TTJ 1217 (Ahd)]; iv) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers [(1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj)] v) M/s Imperial imp & exp vs ITO(ITA 5427/Mum/2015) vi) Deepak Popat Lal Ghada vs. ITO(ITA 6203/Mum/2013) vii) DCIT vs. Shri Jitendra S. Motani [ITA 6178/M/2007 (Mum)] CIT vs.…

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) ..

…he AO did not brought any material on record to show that the assessee has received cash out of the bill receipts; i) While coming to conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s M K Brothers -163 ITR 249(Guj); ii) ITO V/s Permanand 107 TTJ 395, ITAT Jodhpur Bench; iii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 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 C…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Ratansingh Rathord, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…hus, held that the evidence was not adequate to conclude that the purchases made were bogus and, therefore, deleted the aforesaid addition to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the of ITO v Permanand, reported in 107 TTJ 395, wherein in it was held as under:- Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod “In the instant case, the addition rested mainly only on the observation 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 Assessing Officer itself is of prime Importance while makin…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Ratansingh M, .Rathod, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…hus, held that the evidence was not adequate to conclude that the purchases made were bogus and, therefore, deleted the aforesaid addition to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the of ITO v Permanand, reported in 107 TTJ 395, wherein in it was held as under:- Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod “In the instant case, the addition rested mainly only on the observation 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 Assessing Officer itself is of prime Importance while makin…