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 367,846 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur vs. M/S Onsaz Jewellelry Creation, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1501/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

…the ld. CIT (A) was justified in applying average GP rate ignoring the decisions/findings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of (i) 2 ITA No. 1501/JP/2018. M/s. Onsaz Jewellery Creation, Jaipur. M/s. Kachwala Gems vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (288 ITR 10: 2007) and (ii) N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT order dated 16.01.2017 (SLP No. 769 of 2017) wherein it has been held that entire bogus purchases should be added as undisclosed income of the assessee ? 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or insert any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.…

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Tirupati Traders & Computechnics, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2101/Mum/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) बनधम/ Acit 27(3), Mumbai M/S. Tirupati Traders & 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Computechnics, Vs. 22A, Sindh Society, Opp. Vashi Railway Station Shitala Nursing Home, Complex, Vashi, Navi Chembur, (E), Mumbai- Mumbai. 400071. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabft0586F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy/ Ms. Neelima Nadkarni (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Id Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase To Rs.16,19,724/-(Being 12.5% Of The Said Bogus Purchase To Rs. 1,29,57,789/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.1,21,86,039/-( Being Peak Of Total Bogus Purchases Of Rs, 1,29,57,789/- Made In The Assessment U/S 69C Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Decision In The Case Of Nk Proteins Ltd. V/S Dt [292 Ctr (Guj) 354(2016), Upholding The Decision Of Hon'Ble Gujrat High Court

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy/ Ms
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…yment 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 4 A.Y. 2009-10 Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kanchwala 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 AU 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 the…

M/S. Raj Buildcon Construction Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2422/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Raj Buildcon Vs. Jcit(A), Construction Ltd., Range-Ii, Gurgaon (Haryana) 404, Welldone Tech Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan :Aadcr6387F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Raj Buildcon Vs. JCIT(A), Construction Ltd., Range-II, Gurgaon (Haryana) 404, Welldone Tech Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) PAN :AADCR6387F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of hearing 18.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against order dated 13/03/2015 passed by the Ld. Com…

Mitesh Ilesh Gadhia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 354/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Ravish Soodshri Mitesh Ilesh Gadhia Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 201, Vyapar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor Room No. 1918 368/270 Narshi Natha Street Vs. Air India Building Masjid Bunder (W) Nariman Point Mumbai 400009 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aegpg2818A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)

…pon the assessee to prove all expenses. He further held that payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish genuineness of the purchases as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems vs. JCIT (2007) (288 ITR 10). The AO also observed that the real test with regard to the genuineness of transaction is “Preponderance of Probabilities” and surrounding circumstances as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962)(45 ITR 206), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995)(214 ITR 801)(SC…

M/S Shiv Kumar Baigara and Company, Udhampur vs. Income Tax Officer Udhampur, Udhampur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 357/ASR/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.357/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. P.N.Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…is for making the assessment; estimation being otherwise integral to an assessment, as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court per several decisions, as in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 90 ITR 271 ITR (SC); Kachwala Gems vs. Jt. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC), citing two. In the present case, the assessing authority rejected the assessee’s accounts as the assessee was unable to explain the low gross profit rate, i.e., in comparison to another wine shop, selling the same liquor brands, operating in the area. That, however, would not, by itself, imply that the assessee had earned a higher profit. It…

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

ITA 4813/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 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.4813/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat K PatelFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o-called seller about issuing bogus bills of purchases. f). The Hon'ble I.T.A.T, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems. Vs. JCIT No. 134/JP/202 dt 10.12.2003 affirmed by the 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 purchases. g). 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…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…to further submit that even in case of best judgment assessment is passed , after rejecting the books of accounts, then, in such case, the total income is estimated, on the basis of honest guess work as per the normal profit in the industry. [Kachwala Gems - 288 ITR 10(SC). The appellant makes a prayer to adopt the concept of real income and estimate the suppressed income of Rs. 7,24,957/- (@ 45.'49% - 41.75% on Rs.1,93,83,886/-) that reasonably would have been earned in such trading activity; 1.6 The appellant to substantiate, the genuineness of the disclosed purchase and corresponding sales, relied upon the un…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pearl Bottling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5306/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 145(2)Section 153A

…ann.com 152 (Delhi)/r20111 202 Taxman 268 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld addition on account of GP rate @5% as against 3.25% disclosed by the assessee in earlier years 5- Kachwala Gems Vs CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC)/[2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 585 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) Assessing Officer, on finding that assessee had not maintained and kept any quantitative details/stock register for goods traded in by it; that there was no evidence on record or document to verify basis of valuation of closing stock shown by assessee; and that GP rate declared by assessee during ass…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pearl Bottling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5305/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 145(2)Section 153A

…ann.com 152 (Delhi)/r20111 202 Taxman 268 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld addition on account of GP rate @5% as against 3.25% disclosed by the assessee in earlier years 5- Kachwala Gems Vs CIT [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC)/[2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 585 (SC) (Copy Enclosed) Assessing Officer, on finding that assessee had not maintained and kept any quantitative details/stock register for goods traded in by it; that there was no evidence on record or document to verify basis of valuation of closing stock shown by assessee; and that GP rate declared by assessee during ass…

ACIT Cir-1, Jamshedpur vs. M/S Autoprofile Ltd, Jamshedpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…r without further supporting materials. For argument shake even in the case of estimate some guesswork maybe possible but not an arbitrary exercise of assessment powers as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems vs. Joint CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). It is therefore, requested that the addition of Rs.2,58,865.58/- may kindly be deleted. 4.3 I have gone through the order of the learned AO as well as the remand report and the written submission made by the appellant. Para 2 of the order the AO has observed that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of certain auto components as per spec…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pathankot vs. M/S Walia Construction Co., Pathankot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 499/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.S.Saini & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.499(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (Ld. DR)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 250(6)

…Construction Co., Pathankot assessing officer by rejecting the accounts on various cogent reasons. ii) The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Amritsar is not right in deleting the above addition when as per the settled law including the judgment of the SC Kanchwala Gems Vs JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) holding that since cogent reasons were given by the A.O. for rejecting the accounts there was no reasons to take a different view and well settled that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guesswork and it is the assessee himself who is to blame as he did not submit proper accounts. iii) The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Amritsar…

Shantilal B. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4262/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…also reveals that purchases of these materials were supported by sales. The estimation of embedded profits in these purchases has to be an fair & honest estimation as stipulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) . Keeping in view factual matrix of the case , we are of the considered view that if 12.5% of these alleged bogus purchases are brought to tax as an income embedded in these purchases in addition to and over & above income declared by the assessee will meet end of justice and will be an fair and honest estimation of income. Thus, we confirm ad…

Shantilal B Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4261/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Ito-3(4), Flat No. 24, 6Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Gaurav Apt. , Murbad Road, V. Sarvoday Nagar, Kalyan(W)- 421301 Nahur Village Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Akcpp9255C Assessee By: Mr. Divendra H. Jain Revenue By : Shri. S.K Jain सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Are Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4261 & 4262/Mum/2017 For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively , Are Directed Against Common Appellate Order Dated 29.03.2017 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. 222 & 223/15-16, For Assessment Year’S 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 19.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. Since Both These Appeals Raises Similar Issues & Common Grounds

For Appellant: Mr. Divendra H. JainFor Respondent: Shri. S.K Jain
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…also reveals that purchases of these materials were supported by sales. The estimation of embedded profits in these purchases has to be an fair & honest estimation as stipulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) . Keeping in view factual matrix of the case , we are of the considered view that if 12.5% of these alleged bogus purchases are brought to tax as an income embedded in these purchases in addition to and over & above income declared by the assessee will meet end of justice and will be an fair and honest estimation of income. Thus, we confirm ad…

Hydroair Tectonics (Pcd) Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3949/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…normal returns filed u/s 139(1) and thereafter determined net profit of the business by estimating 30% profit from the business. While doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) has taken support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems vs CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a best judgement 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 judgement assessment and should not go totally arbitrary, but there is 50 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd…

Rajkumari Singh, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8, Mumbai

ITA 946/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

…normal returns filed u/s 139(1) and thereafter determined net profit of the business by estimating 30% profit from the business. While doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) has taken support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems vs CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a best judgement 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 judgement assessment and should not go totally arbitrary, but there is 50 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mohd. Ashif Siddiqui, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2319/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2318 & 2319/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 147

…year 2010-11 assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 “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 bogus…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mohd. Ashif Siddiqui, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2318/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2318 & 2319/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 147

…year 2010-11 assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 “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 bogus…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Birla Electricals Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 148

…in deleting the addition made by the AO rejecting the books of accounts by failing to appreciate the fact that the case of the assesse squarely falls under the ambit of the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MIs Kachwala Jems Vs. JCIT, Jaipur (288 ITR 10) of 2007. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add, or forego any ground(s) of the appeal at the time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2. The case was fixed for hearing many times but none present on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the case has been heard ex parte qua assessee. The brief f…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

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.…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rt in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. 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.…