Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. Dinesh Madhabhai Dhedhi, Dombivali

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward Shri Dinesh Madhabhaidhebhi, 3(2), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Prop. Shreeram Switchgear, B- Mansion, Murbad Road, 10, Shree Gurudatt Tower, Kalyan (W), 421301. Pandurangwadi, Manpada Road, Dombivali (E)-421201 Pan No. Aokpd4634D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2019

…sion of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 in the case of N K. Proteins Ltd. against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanchwala Gems V/s JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC)? Shri Dinesh MadhabhaiDhebhi 3 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 on 21.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,71,641/-. On receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase b…

ITO, Ward- 3 (2), Kalyan vs. Pankaj Umedchand Gandhi, Dombivali

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Ward Shri Pankaj Umedchand Gandhi, 3(2), Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Vs. Prop. Harsh Business Centre, Mansion, Murbad Road, C/O Adv. N.A. Kulkarni, Vadal Kalyan (W), 421301. Bldg., Ist Floor, Opp. Nds Bank, Manpada Road, Dombivali (E)- 421201 Pan No. Aaxpg6201G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr.Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019

…ision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 in the case of N K. Proteins Ltd. against which the SLP was dismissed bythe Hon’ble Apex Court and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kanchwala Gems V/s JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC)? Shri Pankaj Umedchand Gandhi 3 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.2,40,102/-. On receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase…

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Kalyan vs. Shri. Ramesh Shamji Patel, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…of purchases. Further, he also agreed with the Assessing Officer on the issue of rejection of Books of Account. Having held so, learned Commissioner (Appeals) referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ltd. v/s JCIT, [2006] 288 ITR 10 (SC) and CST Vs H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali, [1973] 90 ITR 271 (SC), observed that since sales effected by the assessee have not been doubted, the entire purchases could not be added to the income of the assessee, but only profit element embedded in non–genuine purchases estimated at a reasonable percentage can be considered for addition. According…

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Mumbai vs. Vinod D Vagasia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Income-Tax Officer Vs Vinod D Vagasia Ward 2(4), Thane, Poonam Nagar, Room No. 12, “B” Wing, Bldg No.C-25 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Chs Ltd, Flat No.102 Wagle Industrial Estate Road Mira Road-401 107 No. 16Z, Ambika Nagar, Pan : Abepv3863H Thane- 400604 Appellant Respondednt

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Income-tax Officer Vs Vinod D Vagasia Ward 2(4), Thane, Poonam Nagar, Room No. 12, “B” Wing, Bldg No.C-25 6th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, CHS Ltd, Flat No.102 Wagle Industrial Estate Road Mira Road-401 107 No. 16Z, Ambika Nagar, PAN : ABEPV3863H Thane- 400604 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Ms. Samatha Mullamudh (DR) Respondent by None Date of hearing 15-10-2019 Date of pronouncement 23-10-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, JM : 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)…

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Krish Micro System Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Income-Tax Officer Vs M/S Krish Micro System Pvt Ltd Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai 204, Spring Leaf Chsl, Lokhandwala, Kandivali (E) Mumbai400 101 Pan : Aacck6090R Appellant Respondednt

…) The contention that the payments are made by account payee cheque is not a fool proof method of substantiating the assessee's claim and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Reliance is placed on Kachwal Gems Vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). (viii) It is well-settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to I.T Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Daya…

Kunal Steel, Mumbai vs. ACIT -17(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) M/S Kunal Steel, Vs Acit 17(2), Mumbai 113, Kansara Street, Darukhana, 3Rd Lane, Mumbai- 9 Pan : Aahfk2164J Appellant Respondednt

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) M/s Kunal Steel, Vs ACIT 17(2), Mumbai 113, Kansara Street, Darukhana, 3rd Lane, Mumbai- 9 PAN : AAHFK2164J APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Samatha Mullamudhi ( Sr.DR) Date of hearing 16-10-2019 Date of pronouncement 23-10-2019 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, JM : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-57, Mumbai dated01.06.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. There is delay of 2…

Raina Engineers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12 are allowed and appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/S Raina Engineers, The Asst. Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Panvel Circle, Wadala (West), Vs. Panvel Mumbai - 400031 Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, 604, Sunder Tower, Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Off. T.J. Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Opp. Swan Mills, Sewari, Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai Dist: Raigad. Pan: Aabfr6379J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Raina Engineers, The Deputy Commissioner Of A-8, Shri Ram Industrial Estate, Income Tax, G.D. Ambedkar Road, 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Wadala (W), Vs. Opp. Khanda Colony, Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aabfr6379J Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Raina Engineers, Tax, Panvel Circle, A-8, C-6, Sriram Industrial Income Tax Office, 3Rd Floor, Estate, G.D. Ambedkar Road, Trifed Tower, Sector- 17, Vs. Wadala (W), Opp: Khanda Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai - 400031 Dist: Raigad Pan: Aabfr6379J

…enged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) by raising the following effective grounds:- 1. “On the facts & 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& in the circumstances of the case & the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in 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 bogus purchases was c…

Anita Rinku Patodia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1913/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) Smt. Anita Rinku Patodia Acit-Central Circle-3(2) बनाम/ 605, Business Classic Mumbai. Chincholi Bunder Road Vs. Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akrpp-7593-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar- Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. By Way Of This Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08, The Assessee Has Challenged The Quantum Addition Of Rs.90 Lacs Made U/S 68 By Learned Assessing Officer While Framing Assessment U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 16/03/2015. The Additions Have Already Been Confirmed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-51/It 82/2015-

…regard has argued that their transactions were made through cheques through proper banking channels. However payment through cheque alone does not decide the genuineness of transitions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case Kachwal Gems V/s CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC), wherein it was held that mere payments by account payee cheques is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Further, reliance is placed on C Vasantilal Co V/s CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206(SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) wherein it has been held that even…

ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Actube Enterprises, Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) Actube Enterprises Room No. 505, C-10, 5Th 27, Laxmi Flat Owner Floor, Pratyakshkar Chs Limited , V. Bhavan, Bkc, M.G. Road Extension, Bandra(East), Vile Parle(East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aabfa2570J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Vivek Anand Ojha (Dr) Assessee By: Apurva R. Shah (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 3941/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 15.03.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-37/It-722/Ito-25(2)(1)/15-16, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay:2010-11. I.T.A. No.3941/Mum/2017

…circumstances, only profit element embedded in such bogus purchases need to be brought to tax as income of the assessee which definitely involved guess work. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v.JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) is applicable. We do not find any reason to deviate from well reasoned order passed by tribunal in Revenue appeal as detailed above, which we affirm/confirm. Thus the assessee’s appeal for AY 2009-10 is disposed off by following the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by tribunal in revenue’s appeal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009- 10,2010-11, 20…

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

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: -

…t 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 OR (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 4. statements recorded by the Sales Tax Authorities as well as further inquiries carried out by him independently. The information received from the…

Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer Smt. Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania V. 24, Saraswati Sadan Ward No. 17(2)(5) 1St Floor, 113 Keshavji Naik Road Mumbai Fort, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Adwpd 7778 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Haresh P. Shah Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

…. (x) The contention that the payment are made by account payee cheque is not a fool proof method of substantiating the assessee's claim and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. Reliance is placed on Kachwal Gems Vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). (xi) It is well-settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to I.T Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs.…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -6(4), Mumbai vs. Hakmans Financial Services & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(4) M/S. Hakmans Financial R.No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Services & Securities Air India Building, Private Ltd., V. Nariman Point, 105, Sagar Shopping Mumbai- 400021 Centre, Jp Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400058 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan:Aaach1513N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Yogesh Joijode (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 5242/Mum/2016, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 20.05.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-41/Dccc-39/It-90/12-13, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ DCIT Central Circle-6(4) M/s. Hakmans Financial R.No. 1925, 19th Floor, Services & Securities AIR India Building, Private Ltd., v. Nariman Point, 105, Sagar Shopping Mumbai- 400021 Centre, JP Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400058 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN:AAACH1513N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)…

Hiren Narayandas Shah, Raigad vs. ITO Ward - 2, Panvel, New Panvel

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2151/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Hiren Narayandas Shah The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Riddhi Siddhi Ward-2, Panvel, 2 Nd Floor, Enterprises, Rameshwar Trifed Tower, Opp. Khanda Vs. Steel, Co., Kolkhe Village Colony, New Panvel, Pin Mumbai-Pune Road, Panvel, 410206 Dist.Raigad, Pin-410 206 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aeips0593Q

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 2151/Mum/2016 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Hiren Narayandas Shah The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Riddhi Siddhi Ward-2, Panvel, 2 nd Floor, Enterprises, Rameshwar Trifed Tower, Opp. Khanda Vs. Steel, Co., Kolkhe Village Colony, New Panvel, PIN Mumbai-Pune Road, Panvel, 410206 Dist.Raigad, PIN-410 206 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) ..…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

…rchases restricted disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases being profits embedded in these purchases which was suppressed by assessee while filing return of income. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC) is relevant. In estimation some guess work is involved but it should be fair , reasonable and honest. We donot find any infirmity in estimation done by learned CIT(A). The AO on its part has rightly relied on provisions of Section 101,103 and 106 of the Indian Evidences Act, 1872. These purchases are appearing in books of accounts of the asse…

Tanaya Gems & Jewellery Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly confirm the addition. The ground is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

…hannel would not by itself establish that gift was genuine". Similar views were also expressed by ITAT Jaipur in the case of Kachwala Gems, in ITA No. 134/JP/2002 dated 10/12/2003 which was confirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the same case reported in 288 ITR 10 (SC). 5.2.2 In view of the above discussion, I hold that even though the appellant has filed the details like PAN, account copy etc. to prove the identity of the creditor, it could not prove creditworthiness of the parties and 18 I.T.A. No. 3196/Mum/2017 M/s Tanaya Gems & Jewellery Exports Ltd. genuineness of the transaction satisfactorily in vie…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…the additions to the income to the tune of 14.55% of the alleged bogus purchases , as were made by the AO vide appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned CIT(A): a) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 10(SC) b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 355 ITR 390(Guj) I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 c) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290(Guj.) 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by…

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

…the additions to the income to the tune of 14.55% of the alleged bogus purchases , as were made by the AO vide appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned CIT(A): a) Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2006) 288 ITR 10(SC) b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Private Limited (2013) 355 ITR 390(Guj) I.T.A. No.1158/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No.1159/Mum/2018 c) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290(Guj.) 6. The assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order dated 18.12.2017 passed by…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh C. Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-19(2)(3), Mumbai Vs Shri Mukesh C Sanghvi Prop M/S Rajendra Steel & Alloys Room No.6, Ground Floor, 79, 2Nd Pathan Street, 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Anzps6511Q Appellant Respondednt

…(1994) 121 CTR (Cal) 20 and the view was supported by the Hon^ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT ITA No 134/ JP /2002 dt. 10.12.2003 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 585, 288 ITR 10 (SC). (d) The genuineness of transaction is not proved on the basis of primary facts on record. In this case there is uncontroverted evidence from an impeccable source which has the primary duty of taxing a purchase-sale transaction in the form of admission of the so-called seller about issuing bogus bills of purchase/sale which was held in the ca…