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

DCIT - CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ies as bogus, is rejected. 7.19 The assessee contends that the payments have been made by cheque and therefore, the purchases claimed by it cannot be doubted. On this contention, it is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchawala Gems (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that the mere fact that the payments have been made through cheques alone cannot prove the genuineness of the purchases claimed. 7.20 The assessee submitted that 80% of the cement & steel is utilised in installation of Wind Mills and the balance 20% is utilised for the other activities like construction of culverts, small bridges, r…

DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ies as bogus, is rejected. 7.19 The assessee contends that the payments have been made by cheque and therefore, the purchases claimed by it cannot be doubted. On this contention, it is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchawala Gems (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that the mere fact that the payments have been made through cheques alone cannot prove the genuineness of the purchases claimed. 7.20 The assessee submitted that 80% of the cement & steel is utilised in installation of Wind Mills and the balance 20% is utilised for the other activities like construction of culverts, small bridges, r…

Careernet Technologies (P) Ltd., Gorakhpur vs. ACIT, Range - 2, Gorakhpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 110/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 Apr 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2014-15 Careernet Technologies The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited V. Income Tax, 200, Charanlalchowk Range-2 Durga Bari Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan: Aabcc7128H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: None ( Written submissions, datedFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)

…nd restore the order of the Ist Appellate Authority. In our opinion, the disallowance of 5% in the facts of the case is justified.” Reference is also drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala gems v. JCIT, reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “11. It is well-settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned 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 neces…

Shri Govind Narain Johari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Hanif Khan (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES’ B’,VC, JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 501/JP/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08. cuke M/s. Handmade Paper & Board The ACIT, Vs. Industries, Circle – 7, 1/282, Gramodyog Road, Jaipur. Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABFH 9173 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Hanif Khan (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…are rejected, then the profit declared by assessee in the past or subsequent years should be adopted for estimation of ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 28 profit for instant year. Reliance was placed on the following judgments: i) 288 ITR 10 (SC) Kachwala Gems v. JCIT ii) 374 ITR 545 (P&H) CIT v. RajinderParashad Jain iii) 45 ITR (T) 33 (Chd) DCIT v. Smart Value Product & 5.1 It was further submitted that once the learned Pr. CIT has not disputed the action of the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the rejection of books of accounts, the revenue could not rely on the rejected books of ac…

Dy CIT Circle-33 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Vishal Praful Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6843/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) I.T.A. No.6843 & 6117/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…sting parties. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (ITA No 134/JP/2002 dated 10.12.2003) affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585:288 ITR 10(SC), it has been held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. e. Assessee did not produce the purchase party for verification, The onus to prove the genuineness of existence of the party lies on the assessee. The assessee failed to discharge this responsibility. No serious efforts were…

Lokesh Devilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 22 (2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 4674/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4674/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2012-13) Mr. Lokesh Devilal Jain, C-Wing-3302, Oberoi Exquiste, Aba-Karmakar Road, Behind Westin Hotel, Off. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) , Mumbai 400 063 Pan:Aaipj-4065-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(3), 311, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Lokesh Jain –Assessee In Person ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Jain –Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 68

…s are against the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of ITAT, Jaipur in case of M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT ITA No. '134/JP/2002 dated 10/12/2003 affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs JCIT(2006) 206 CTR(SC) 585, 288 ITR 10(SC) has held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Also reliance is placed on the decision of Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs Precision Finance Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 Cal dated 14/06/1993, Wherein it was held that payment through banking channel is not sacrosanct and it…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…T 49 ITR 561 (All) • EMC Machine Works Vs. CIT 49 ITR 650 (All) • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo 76 ITR 690(SC) • State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty 60 ITR 239 (SC) • Kachwala Germs Vs. CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) 6.3 The assessee also submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that the replies were furnished to the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings. The said submission of the assessee has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) at page no. 18 to 21 of the impugned order which is reproduced verbatim as under: i) Reply dated 15.11.2017 (page of Paper Book…

Mahendra H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward- 4 (1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…s are against the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decision of IT AT, Jaipur in case of M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT ITA No. 134/JP/2002 dated 10/12/2003 affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kanchwala Gems Vs JCIT (2006) 206 CTR(SC) 585, 288 ITR 10(SC) has held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Also reliance is placed on the decision of Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs Precision Finance Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 Cal dated 14/06/1993, Wherein it was held that payment through banking channel is not sacrosanct and it…

DCIT 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Siddharth Praful Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 6417/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6417/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-11(2)(2) बिधम/ Siddharth Praful Mehta Room No.421, 4Th Floor, 167/2, Vishal Villa, Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. No.5, Shivaji Park, Mahim Road, Mumbai-400020. (W), Mumbai-400016. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aexpm2847Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Prateek Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 10.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (DR)
Section 143(1)

…t 12.5% made by the Assessing officer in respect of purchases from the bogus entities as the suppressed profits embedded in such purchases, without appreciating the fact that Hon Me Apex Court in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems V/s JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585, 288 ITR 10 (SC), has held that payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases, thereby making the assessee contention made before and accepted by the Ld. C1T(A), insignificant that the transaction were undertaken through banking channel?' 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.…

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Metal Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 5125/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5125/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(1)(3) बिधम/ Ganpat Metal Industries Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Shop No.1 Narayan Niwas, Vs. 2Nd Khetwadi Lane Near Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400007. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg1194B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% As Against @ 19.5% Made By The Ao On Bogus Purchases Despite The Fact That The Addition Was Made On Basis Of Credible Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) Based On Information Supplied From Sales Tax Authorities.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…is held that payment by account payee cheque {is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. The said decision of the ITAT, Jaipur has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585: 288 ITR 10 (SC). Thus, the main contention of the appellant does not hold much water. The AO has formed his views about the „bogus nature of the purchases made by the appellant from the above parties on the basis of statements recorded by the Sales Tax Authorities as well as further inquiries carried out by him independently. The information received from th…

DCIT, Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh Hq, Sirhind vs. M/S Sahil Concast (P) Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 959/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. The Ld. Dr Fairly Agreed To The Same, But He Was Directed By The Bench To Submit In Writing Showing How The Issues Are The Same In Both The Cases

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…inspire confidence and veracity of the books gets dented. The principle stated above has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Melton India vs. Commissioner of Trade of Tax (UP) Appeal No. (Civil) 373 of 2007 (SC) and Kanchwala Gems vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) and followed by the jurisdictional High court Sh. Ganpati Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 16 DTR (P & H). However, in the instant case, the variation in power consumption, as has been discussed cannot be treated as being in excess of the 15% window mentioned supra. In contra to the above, there are arguments that the statistical benchmark of 15%…

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shoreline Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 2094/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

…ted, the mere fact that the suspected suppliers did not appear before the AO is not sufficient to conclude that the purchases were bogus. 11.10 It is further relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. JC'IT (2006) 288 ITR 10, (2006) 206 CTR 0585: (2007) 288 ITR 0010: (2007) 158 TAXMAN 0071 has held that the rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145 in a bogus purchase case and completion of assessment to the best judgment u/s.144 of the Act was justified. The facts of this case are that the assessee was dealing in precious and semi-precious stones. The AO noticed certai…

DCIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ld., Bhilwara

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 279/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav- Ld. CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…it these companies. Even transactions by cheque do not make the transactions genuine. This has been held by the hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Kanchanwala Gems V/s. JC1T in ITA No. 134/JP/02 dated 10.12.2013 and affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 288 ITR 10 (SC) that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction. In view of the aforesaid facts, genuineness of the transactions by these companies of making investment in shares of assessee company is not proved. Hence, source of Investment remains unexplained." 3.6 As per the provision of section…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)

…timation made by the Assessing Authority is a bond fide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has further held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessment, there is always a certain amount “guess work”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (SC) 19 ITR 191 and Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC) 73 ITR 634 has held that in order to claim that an expenditure falls u/s 37(1) of the Act, the burd…