Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274High Court2009#154 most cited

What is Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT authority for?

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

460

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sanjay Oilcake Industries · 316 ITR 274 · bogus purchases · unverifiable purchases · proportionate disallowance · profit element · section 68 · section 69B · section 131 · section 133A · estimation of income

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 68Section 131Section 133ASection 115BBESection 153CSection 69BSection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 69bsection 292csection 292section 44absection 201section 69csection 133asection 29escapement of incomesection 145(3)section 131commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, C-12, Row House No. 3, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Sheetal Nagar, Ashok Chakraborthy Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kandivali (East) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Afypm 7592 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Shah Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)

…t is noted that only profit element is liable to tax in such cases as was held in the case of :- 1. CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) (HC) 2. CIT vs Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT vs Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) 4. ITO vs Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (Jd) (Trib.) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi vs ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench 'B' dt. 23-02-2010 (AY 2005-06) (Mum.) (Trib.) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills vs CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) In view of the above discussion, it is seen that the addition made by the A.O on account of alleged bogus purchase cannot…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai vs. Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the entire purchases as non-genuine. Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions and the evidences produced by the assessee and referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)] and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT [316 ITR 274] estimated the penalty levied @25% since the assessee being a manufacturer. 7. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the…

Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the entire purchases as non-genuine. Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions and the evidences produced by the assessee and referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)] and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT [316 ITR 274] estimated the penalty levied @25% since the assessee being a manufacturer. 7. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2353/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2352 & 2353/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Cooltech Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer 311, 3rd Floor, Pioneer Indl. Estate, Ward – 18(1)(3) Room No. 407, 4th Floor, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai – 400 060 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, PAN: AAEFC 7983 L Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department by : Shri Rajesh Ojha Date of Hearing : 23.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed b…

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2352/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2352 & 2353/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Cooltech Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer 311, 3rd Floor, Pioneer Indl. Estate, Ward – 18(1)(3) Room No. 407, 4th Floor, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai – 400 060 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, PAN: AAEFC 7983 L Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department by : Shri Rajesh Ojha Date of Hearing : 23.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are filed b…

Sejal Gems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3872/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh,D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…atter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such 11 M/s. Sejal Gems Pvt. Ltd. purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industriesv. CIT (2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this court in a judgment dated August 16,2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. KishorAmrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed." 20.In view of the facts and circumstances and the judicial pronouncements cited above; what can be disallowed or taxed in the instant case of th…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 195 62. CIT Vs. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001]168 CTR 314 (Delhi) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 63. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) 64. Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat) 4.1 On the issue of incriminating material, it was submitted that it was not necessary that incriminating material should be found during the search from the assessee itself. The Ld. DR submitted that once an assessment has been reopened consequent to the search under section 153A, the AO is entitled to take into consideration all t…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ITR 195 62. CIT Vs. La Medica [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001]168 CTR 314 (Delhi) Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 63. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) 64. Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat) 4.1 On the issue of incriminating material, it was submitted that it was not necessary that incriminating material should be found during the search from the assessee itself. The Ld. DR submitted that once an assessment has been reopened consequent to the search under section 153A, the AO is entitled to take into consideration all t…

Kokilkumar M.Siyal, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mmbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “SMC” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3205/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3206/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Mr. Kokilkumar M. Siyal The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/s Laxmi Metal 18(2)(1), 304, 3 rd Floor, Trading, 57-A, Shop No. 4, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Kedia House, Madhav Lane, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaq…

Koilkumar M. Siyal, Mumabi vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai`

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3205/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “SMC” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3205/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3206/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Mr. Kokilkumar M. Siyal The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/s Laxmi Metal 18(2)(1), 304, 3 rd Floor, Trading, 57-A, Shop No. 4, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Kedia House, Madhav Lane, Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaq…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Skyway Constructon Co., Mumbai

ITA 5865/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…it element embedded therein was to be taxed. While coming to the above conclusion, the Hon'ble High Court also relied on the decision in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Ind. 316 ITR 274 (Guj). 6.17 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: "12. Thus, it is apparent that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the apparent sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. That goods were received from the parties other than the persons who had issued bills for such goods. T…

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2113/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “SMC” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2113/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Tejraj Manroop Chand The Income Tax Officer, Tak Ward 18(3)(4), Bandra 1 st 234-B, Agarwal Bldg, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Floor, Room No. 6-7, East, Mumbai, Maharashtra- Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai- 400 051 400 002 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. ADQPT2755C अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by…

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

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3 Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “…

Vbcjewellers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly

ITA 655/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

…hat the gross profit earned by them from their trading never exceeded 3% and therefore estimation of 25% of the purchases was not justified. Assessees also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , for its contention that additional profit in excess of 5%could not be assessed. 5. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above reply given by the assessee. According to him, assessee’s could not prove the genuineness of the purchases nor produce intermediaries through whom the purchases were made. Further, according to hi…

Vbcjewellery, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly

ITA 654/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

…hat the gross profit earned by them from their trading never exceeded 3% and therefore estimation of 25% of the purchases was not justified. Assessees also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , for its contention that additional profit in excess of 5%could not be assessed. 5. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above reply given by the assessee. According to him, assessee’s could not prove the genuineness of the purchases nor produce intermediaries through whom the purchases were made. Further, according to hi…

Vbcjewellery, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly

ITA 653/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

…hat the gross profit earned by them from their trading never exceeded 3% and therefore estimation of 25% of the purchases was not justified. Assessees also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , for its contention that additional profit in excess of 5%could not be assessed. 5. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above reply given by the assessee. According to him, assessee’s could not prove the genuineness of the purchases nor produce intermediaries through whom the purchases were made. Further, according to hi…

Vbc Jewellery, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly

ITA 1465/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

…hat the gross profit earned by them from their trading never exceeded 3% and therefore estimation of 25% of the purchases was not justified. Assessees also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , for its contention that additional profit in excess of 5%could not be assessed. 5. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above reply given by the assessee. According to him, assessee’s could not prove the genuineness of the purchases nor produce intermediaries through whom the purchases were made. Further, according to hi…

Vbc Jewellery, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly

ITA 1464/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, IRS, JCIT

…hat the gross profit earned by them from their trading never exceeded 3% and therefore estimation of 25% of the purchases was not justified. Assessees also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT, 316 ITR 274 , for its contention that additional profit in excess of 5%could not be assessed. 5. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not impressed by the above reply given by the assessee. According to him, assessee’s could not prove the genuineness of the purchases nor produce intermediaries through whom the purchases were made. Further, according to hi…

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

…011-12 . 3.2. Before adverting further, we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts/Hon'ble Apex Court, so that we can reach to a proper conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. “11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apparent that no interference is called for in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 29, 1994, read with the order dated September 29, 1994, made in miscellaneous application. In the principal order the…

Shri Narendra G. Pandya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1294/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Bepari
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM I.T.A. Nos. 1294, 1295 & 1296/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Shri Narendra G. Pandya Income Tax Officer 22(3)(4) 35-B, Shilpa Apartment, Room No. 310, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 58, Besant Street, Santacruz (W), Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 054 Mumbai -400 012 PAN/GIR No. AACPP 3151 H (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri S. K. Bepari Date of Hearing : 15.10.2018 : 22.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the…