PCIT v. S.V. Jiwani

145 Taxmann.com 230High Court2022#3836 most cited

What is PCIT v. S.V. Jiwani authority for?

Where purchases are found to be bogus or accommodation entries, the entire purchase amount cannot be added as income; only the profit element embedded therein should be treated as income, as the assessee would have necessarily procured materials to execute works.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. S.V. Jiwani · section 147 · section 69C · section 143(3) · section 148 · accommodation entries · bogus purchases · profit element · disallowance · rejection of books of account · unexplained expenditure

Also reported as

449 ITR 583290 Taxmann 178

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 69CSection 250Section 143(3)Section 148Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)(d)section 14a(1)section 145(2)preponderance of probabilityrejection of books of accountaccommodation entryunexplained expendituresection 145(3)section 69cgenuineness of the transactionsection 145section 270a

Judgments citing PCIT v. S.V. Jiwani

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. PAN: AFEPC 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri P.D. Chougule Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dat…

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kishor Pravinchand Sarkar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3989/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…n for treating the entire purchases as bogus which will distort the trading account enhance the overall GP. Now is a well settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Moghammad Haji Adam & Co (supra) and in the case of PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani 449 ITR 583, wherein it has been held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added and at the most some GP rate should 3 Shri Kishor Pravinchand Sarkar be applied. Since the ld. CIT (A) held 12.5% and there is no cross appeal by the assessee, therefore the GP rate of 12.5% as applied by the ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is d…

Continuity Printers, Navnidhi Indl Estate, Sewree vs. ACIT 20(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1784/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the Id. CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) passed the appeal order andrejected the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us.4. The Id. AR vehemently argued and prayed for restrict the addition @12.5% of the bogus purchase determined by the Id. AO. The Id. AR furter argued that the transactions with the purchasers are through banking channel, the invoice and road challans are duly filed before the revenue authority as proof of genuineness of the trans

Section 143(3)Section 148oSection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI. AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Continuity Printers vs ACIT 20(1) 31, NavnidhiIndl Estate, A.D.Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Sewree, Maharastra-400 015 Maharastra-400012 PAN : AAMFC5014C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ashok Bansal a/w Shri Ajay Daga Department represented by Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15/07/2024 Date of pronouncement /07/2024 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE (JM): Instant appeal of the Revenue was filed against the order of the Ld.…

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3771/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3765/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT, Vs. Peacemoon Traders, Room No. 506,5th Floor, BW3181/3182,B-Tower, Piramal Chamber, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lal Baug, 400012 BKC, Bandra (E) 400051 PAN/GIR No. AAAFP4501D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Nishit Gandhi Revenue by Shri. H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 29/04 /2023 Date of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate…

DCIT, Income Tax Mumbai vs. Peacemoon Traders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3765/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3765/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT, Vs. Peacemoon Traders, Room No. 506,5th Floor, BW3181/3182,B-Tower, Piramal Chamber, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lal Baug, 400012 BKC, Bandra (E) 400051 PAN/GIR No. AAAFP4501D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Nishit Gandhi Revenue by Shri. H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 29/04 /2023 Date of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Revenue against separate…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3869/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…’ble High Court of Bombay has taken the gross profit ratio on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases accepted by the department. The Honourable HC has consistently held onto this logic. In the very latest judgement in case of PCIT v. S.V.Jiwani 449 ITR 583 (2022), 290 Taxman 178(2022), the Court held thus: “It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work…

Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3708/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…’ble High Court of Bombay has taken the gross profit ratio on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases accepted by the department. The Honourable HC has consistently held onto this logic. In the very latest judgement in case of PCIT v. S.V.Jiwani 449 ITR 583 (2022), 290 Taxman 178(2022), the Court held thus: “It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work…

Aczet Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3707/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14A

…’ble High Court of Bombay has taken the gross profit ratio on purchases at the same rate of other genuine purchases accepted by the department. The Honourable HC has consistently held onto this logic. In the very latest judgement in case of PCIT v. S.V.Jiwani 449 ITR 583 (2022), 290 Taxman 178(2022), the Court held thus: “It also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work…

ITO-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Update Marketings Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2232/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17 V. The Ito-4(3)(1), M/S.Update Marketings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 404, Chartered House, Dr.C H Street, Marine Line, Mumbai-400 002. [Pan: Aaacu 0629 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. The ITO-4(3)(1), M/s.Update Marketings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 404, Chartered House, Dr.C H Street, Marine Line, Mumbai-400 002. [PAN: AAACU 0629 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri Vithal Machindra Bhosale, Sr.DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NF…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 462/PUN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.462/PUN/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Central Circle-1, No.36, Gut No.41, Golwadi, Aurangabad Paithan Waluj Link Road, Aurangabad 431 001 Maharashtra PAN : AAHCS7405B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri C.H.Naniwadekar Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date of hearing 20-07-2023 Date of pronouncement 20-07-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is dir…

Nyk Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-18(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7393/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rujesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Assessment Year: 2016-17 NYK Enterprises P. Ltd., ITO, Ward 18(4), New Delhi H.No. 83, Pocket-19, Sector-24, Rohini, New 110002 Delhi-110085 vs. PAN AADCN 1643 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rujesh Sinha, Adv. For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi dated 01.07.2019. It…