Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT

Dhansukh Rawajibhai Patel, Palghar vs. ACIT Palghar, Palghar

In the result, appeal is on this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhansukh Rawajibhai Acit Patel Palghar. Machhipada Sarawali, Vs. Po, Boisar, Tal & Po, Palghar - 401501 Pan: Abqpp9188B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhansukh Rawajibhai ACIT Patel Palghar. Machhipada Sarawali, Vs. PO, Boisar, Tal & PO, Palghar - 401501 PAN: ABQPP9188B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri Purushottam Kumar Date of Hearing : 12.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2017 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The above titled appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.03.2017 of the Commi…

Satnam Steel Traders, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed where the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.3555/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Satnam Steel Traders, Dcit, Circle-1, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Near Kota Stone, Vs. Kalyan-Bhiwandi Road, Nagar, Khadakpara, Village Rajnoli, Bhiwandi, Kalyan (W) – 421301. Thane – 421302. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagfs8329C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.3618/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Dcit, Circle-1, फनाभ/ Satnam Steel Traders, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Near Kota Stone, Vs. Nagar, Khadakpara, Kalyan-Bhiwandi Road, Kalyan (W) – 421301. Village Rajnoli, Bhiwandi, Thane – 421302. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagfs8329C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…This view has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements:  ITO vs. Permanand [2007] 107 TTJ (Jd) 395  Kishichand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC)  Jagdamba Trading Co. Vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ (Jd) 398  Prakas Chand Nahata vs. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 134 (MP) 7. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the nature of the assessee’s business and the GP and the NP disclosed by the other business houses engaged in similar activity, we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases. We dire…

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Jagdish Thakkar, Mumbai

…the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority(FAA) and made elaborate submissions.He relied upon the cases of the JMD Computer(321 ITR 6) and Prakashchand (301 ITR 134), Babulal Borana (282 ITR 251) and Rajeev J Kalatha (ITA/1627/Mum/2012). After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, the FAA held that onus to prove the genuineness of the expenditure was on the assessee, that by furnishing the bills and delivery challans relating to the purchases of the goods he had discharged the…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…