Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (17) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT

55 TTJ 261Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#11751 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (17) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi AAECR2527G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.01.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)—7, New Delhi dated 17th June, 2019, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…31/M/2019 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12 as there were no other purchases of chuni-bhusi, the benefit of deduction of such purchases had rightly been disallowed.” 5.2.15 Similarly, in the case of Khandelwal Trading Co. V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax [1996] 55 TTJ 261 (JP.), it was observed and held as under : “7. We take up the first contention of Shri Singhui. It was contended that only gross profit rate should have been applied and the addition should have been to that extent only. 8. Let us assume that the impugned purchases in this case are bogus what can be the causes and effects? Either corresponding bog…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY N. MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5216/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunathaacit-17(3) Vs. Vijay N.Mehta Room No.137, 1St Floor Room No.13,338 Aaykar Bhawan,M.K.Marg N.N.Street Mumbai-400 020 Masjid Bunder(W) Mumbai-400 009 Pan/Gir No.Aadpm8512G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…as regards the sales and closing stock and the maintenance of stock register cannot lead to conclusion otherwise, as accountancy is essentially an art and not a science, as held by the Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT in the case of Khandelwal Trading Co,, as reported in 55 TTJ 261. 2. "The appellant prays that the order of the A.O should be restored and order of the Ld, CIT [A] should be set aside." 3. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary/' 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Chemical and solvents throug…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-11(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. WESTERN IMAGINARY TRANSCON PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…om 408/ 17 Taxamann.com 202 (15) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1 (16) Mathuram Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 (17) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.) (18) Khandelwal Trading Co. vs. ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ 261 (JP) (19) Deoria Oxygen Company vs. CIT (2007) 160 Taxman 427 (ALL.) (20) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (21) Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1994) 12 ITR 393 (22) Samurai Software P. Ltd., vs. CIT (2008) 299 ITR 324 (Raj.) (23) CIT vs. La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (24) Indian Woolen Carpet Factory vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 76…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KAKKAR BARTAN STORE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1277/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2006-07] The I.T.O Vs. M/S Kakakr Bartan Store Ward – 63(3) Prop. Shri Amit Kumar New Delhi 5203, Sadar Thana Road Sadar Bazar, Delhi Pan : Afbk 9243 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…as erred in reducing the addition on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that if a bogus entry is found in accounts, the solution thereof is to remove that entry, as held by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Khandelwal Trading Co. Vs. ACIT 55 TTJ 261). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case,the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in applying the specific provisions of Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act for reducing the addition on account of bogus purchases. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in observing that the rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) is not upheld.”…

ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BABULAL U MUNOT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 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) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…having been found to be bogus and as there were no other purchases of chuni-bhusi, the benefit of deduction of such purchases had rightly been disallowed," 2.4.17 Similarly, in the case of KHANDELWAL TRADING CO. v, ASSISTANT COMMISSTONER OF INCOME-TAX [1996] 55 TTJ 261 (JR.), it was held as under: "7. We take, up the first contention of Shri Singhvi it was contended that only gross profit rate should have been applied and the addition should have been to that extent only. 8. Let us assume that the impugned purchases in this case are t bogus-what can be the causes and effects? Either corresponding bogus sates ha…

KAVIRAJ CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM I.T.A. Nos. 1326/M/2015 & 1327/M/2015, Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Kaviraj Construction Vs. ACIT 16(3) 10Atul Niwas, 1st Floor, Mumbai R.No. 20/21 7thFloor, Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai. Pin: 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFK3860C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos.1190/M/2015 &1191/M/2015, Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT 16(3) Vs. Kaviraj Construction Mumbai 10Atul Niwas, 1st Floor, R.No. 20/21 7thFloor, Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai. Pin: 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.…

ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI vs. LEKHRAJ H DOSHI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…at Ram Rawatmal. 87 ITR 349, Chuhar Mal vs CIT 172 ITR 205 (SC), Nikunj Eximps, ITA No.5604 of 2010 (Bom.), Killick Nixon ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 20 taxman.com 703 (Bom.), Shri Ganesh Rice Mills vs CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All.), Khandelwal Trading Company vs ACIT 55 TTJ 261(JP) and various other judicial pronouncements, as mentioned in the impugned order along with similar issue adjudicated in the case of the assessee, estimated the embedded income at the rate of 12.5% of the total purchases. Since, the assessee had already offered and average gross of profit of 5% during the last few years, the net addition was conf…

KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO -23(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) BKC, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai PAN – ABWPD5848A Appellant Respondent Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Milind Rajguru Date of Hearing: 11.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2017 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 40, Mumbai dated 10.02.2016 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The…