Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

288 ITR 10Supreme Court of India2007#229 most cited

What is Kachwala Gems v. JCIT authority for?

In a best judgment assessment, some guesswork is inherent, but the estimate must be fair and not arbitrary. Books of account can be rejected under Section 145(3) if the assessee fails to substantiate entries or prove the genuineness of transactions, leading to estimation of income.

332

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,842 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kachwala Gems v. JCIT · Section 145(3) · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · genuineness of purchases · arbitrary estimate · onus to prove transactions · estimation of income · Section 144 · Section 69C

Also reported as

158 Taxmann 71

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

best judgment assessmentrejection of books of accountsection 145(3)section 145loose paperssection 133asection 132(4)documents seizedaccommodation entryregular assessmentsection 69cservice of notice

Judgments citing Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…e of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 48 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…t given by Shri Shreyans L. Jain before him cannot be relied upon, since he was acting on behalf of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. The Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems Vs. JCIT (2006) 288 ITR 10, took the view that receipt of loan amount by way of account payee cheque in itself is not sufficient to establish genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer took the view that M/s. Prime Star is benami concern of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, who utilised the said concern to give accommodation entries to various parties. Accordingly,…

Abhilasha Construction, Jhansi vs. JCIT Range-6, Jhansi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11
Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 40

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before: Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Abhilasha Construction, vs. JCIT, Range-6,Aayakar 516, Shivaji Nagar, Bhawan, Jhansi KanpurRoad,Jhansi. PAN:AAIFA 8776 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by ShriAnurag Sinha, Advocate. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 04.10.2018 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This is assesse's appeal for assessment year 2010-11, raising the following grounds: 1. BECAUSE, separate addition of I…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2119/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2010-11 Jayprakash N Lakhani, Jcit-2, Block No.1-975/1950, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Kailash Colony, Ot Section, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Vs. Ulhansnagar, Kalyan West, Maharashtra-421005 Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aakpl5145M

Section 69C

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dhondiram Narayan Limbhore, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1957/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1956 & 1957/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mrs. Shweta MishraFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

…re, the grounds of appeal in ITA No.1956/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 are extracted here as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court’s decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not following the order of ITAT, Pune in ITA No.1411- 1415 dated 20-02-2015 in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., wherein 100% addition of bog…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dhondiram Narayan Limbhore, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1956/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1956 & 1957/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mrs. Shweta MishraFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

…re, the grounds of appeal in ITA No.1956/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 are extracted here as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) and Hon’ble High Court’s decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not following the order of ITAT, Pune in ITA No.1411- 1415 dated 20-02-2015 in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., wherein 100% addition of bog…

S.S. Construction, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer Cir 19(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while CO filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5482/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5482/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. S.S. Construction, The Assessing Officer Cir Shop No. 106, Building No.9, 19(1), 3Rd Floor, Jogani Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, V. V.N. Purav Marg, Lal Buag, Parel, Chunabhatti, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai-400022. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aasfs8983N

For Appellant: Shri. Dinesh R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 37(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5482/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/s. S.S. Construction, The Assessing Officer CIR Shop no. 106, Building No.9, 19(1), 3rd floor, Jogani Industrial Estate, Piramal Chambers, v. V.N. Purav Marg, Lal Buag, Parel, Chunabhatti, Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai-400022. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AASFS8983N CO. No.141/Mum/2018 आयकर अपीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.5482/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010…

ITO 10(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and upheld the

ITA 4126/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd. 10(1)(3), Plot No.1-4, Loyalka Lane, बनाम/ Room No.25B, Ground Opp. Aziz Compound, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabc17006E

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Shri Jayesh Bhogilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133(6)

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Shri Sunil Agrawal, Dhar vs. The ITO, Dhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 241/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 241/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sunil Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamnod Dhar

Section 143(3)

…discussion, it is evident that no stock records were maintained by the appellant and there was discrepancy in the figures of sale/purchase, thus the books of accounts were not reliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT, Jaipur, 288 ITR 10 (SC) has in such a situation held that rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit has to be upheld. In the light of the above the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profits by the AO is -: 6 :- Sunil Agrawal, Dhamnod. found to be justified. However, it is to be noted that AO has not considered the fact that for the year…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…other parties. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that only the Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah profit element on the disputed purchases could be brought to tax. Therefore, relying on the decision in Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Kachwala Gems v. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), CIT v. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the disputed purchases. Thusit comes to Rs. 90,58,645/ (30% 0f Rs. 3,01,95,484/-) for AY 2008-09, Rs.4,70,82,615/- (30% of Rs.15,69,42,051/-) for AY 2009-10, Rs.8,90,49,891/- (30% of Rs.29,68,32…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…other parties. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that only the Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah profit element on the disputed purchases could be brought to tax. Therefore, relying on the decision in Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Kachwala Gems v. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), CIT v. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the disputed purchases. Thusit comes to Rs. 90,58,645/ (30% 0f Rs. 3,01,95,484/-) for AY 2008-09, Rs.4,70,82,615/- (30% of Rs.15,69,42,051/-) for AY 2009-10, Rs.8,90,49,891/- (30% of Rs.29,68,32…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4408/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…other parties. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that only the Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah profit element on the disputed purchases could be brought to tax. Therefore, relying on the decision in Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Kachwala Gems v. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), CIT v. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the disputed purchases. Thusit comes to Rs. 90,58,645/ (30% 0f Rs. 3,01,95,484/-) for AY 2008-09, Rs.4,70,82,615/- (30% of Rs.15,69,42,051/-) for AY 2009-10, Rs.8,90,49,891/- (30% of Rs.29,68,32…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4407/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…other parties. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) held that only the Shri Vaibhav Deepak Shah profit element on the disputed purchases could be brought to tax. Therefore, relying on the decision in Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Kachwala Gems v. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), CIT v. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 30% of the disputed purchases. Thusit comes to Rs. 90,58,645/ (30% 0f Rs. 3,01,95,484/-) for AY 2008-09, Rs.4,70,82,615/- (30% of Rs.15,69,42,051/-) for AY 2009-10, Rs.8,90,49,891/- (30% of Rs.29,68,32…

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities best judgment assessment. 8. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the decision of the Tribunal, being based on an estimate, does not give rise to any question of law so as to warrant…

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 192/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 51

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities best judgment assessment. 8. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid decisions, the decision of the Tribunal, being based on an estimate, does not give rise to any question of law so as to warrant…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2603/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…