PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, M/s. Anantam, 233, Income Tax Office, 76, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN:AAJFA7749R (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri D.C. Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2026 : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, M/s. Anantam, 233, Income Tax Office, 76, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN:AAJFA7749R (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri D.C. Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2026 : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the…

PRATAP THAKRAJI SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

…extent of GP rate declared at 11.54% on the\nimpugned purchases.\n4.3 In the light of above, ld. AR has argued at the reliance placed by the ld.\nAO on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of\nM/s. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. [2025] 474 ITR 175 is misplaced. He has\ninstead placed reliance on another decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court in the case of PCIT V Mohommed Haji Adam & Co. [2019]103\ntaxmann.com 459 wherein it has been held that even if the purchases are\nbogus, entire purchase amount cannot be added as the department had\nnot disputed the assessee's sales and, t…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHA TARACHAND FOJMAL AND COMPANY, MUMBAI

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

…ntending that the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the gross profit rate applied by the Assessing Officer from 5.54% to 3.41%. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (474 ITR 175) and PCIT vs. Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Court had upheld additions of 100% of the purchases held to be bogus.\n6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue and perused the orders of the lower authorities. At the outset, we find that both the judicial precedents relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguish…

WALMARK GARMENT COMPAMY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

…. Ltd. as bogus and making the addition of the entire amount 69C of the Act. 7.3 Further, reliance has been placed by ld. DR on the recent decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: i. PCIT V. Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 175 wherein it has been held that when purchases were not proved, the entire amount had to be added u/s. 69C and the estimation was not permissible. ii. PCIT V. Drisha Impex (P) Ltd. (2025) 173 taxmann.com 571 (Bom) wherein Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary ones of P a g e | 10 proving the purcha…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. PRAVINCHANDRA B DEDHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3776/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO – 41(3)(3) Vs Pravinchandra B Dedhia 853, Kautilya Bhavan, 2nd Floor, A Wing, BKC, Mumbai – Panvai Nagar, 400051. Nalasopara (W), Mumba AAQPD3140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Vikash Chandra, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 17.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the…

ITO, MUMBAI vs. SHEMON JEWELS, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…artment is represented by Ld. Sr DR, whereas there was representation on behalf of the assessee. 8. Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of Ld. AO, placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 175 (Bombay), wherein Hon’ble Court had held that addition of entire amount of bogus purchase from hawala operators in the hands of assessee was justified due to failure of assessee to prove said purchases. Accordingly, it is prayed that the addition made of 100% in the assessment order is correct and CIT(A)’s order to be set aside. 9. We have consi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHEMON JEWELS, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

…artment is represented by Ld. Sr DR, whereas there was representation on behalf of the assessee. 8. Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of Ld. AO, placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 175 (Bombay), wherein Hon’ble Court had held that addition of entire amount of bogus purchase from hawala operators in the hands of assessee was justified due to failure of assessee to prove said purchases. Accordingly, it is prayed that the addition made of 100% in the assessment order is correct and CIT(A)’s order to be set aside. 9. We have consi…