Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High 43 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 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:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the f…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…we deem it appropriate to consider various decisions from Hon'ble High 43 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 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:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the f…

Abhay Ambalal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Abhay Ambalal Shah Vs. Ito Wd. 3(1) Flat No.10, Gurudatta Hsg. Kalyan Society, A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Patel Chowk Ghatkopar East Mumbai – 400 075 Pan/Gir No.Ackps4827P Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Written Submission Revenue By Shri Chaitanya Anjaria Date Of Hearing 27/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2018

…6.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 .(Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is g…

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. N.R Cororation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1712/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Acit-27(2), Room No. बिधम/ M/S. N.R. Corporation Shop 420, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, No. 13, Navrathna Building, Vs. Vashi Railway Station New Maneklal Estate, Lbs Complex, Vashi, Navi Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400086. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfn8943N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…d 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 Qitcakd Industries v. C1T12009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this court in a judgment dated August 16,2011, in Tan Appeal N0.67Q of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amivtist PatiI in tfi& result, tax appeal is dismissed." g. In view of the facts and circumstances and (he judicial pronouncements cited above, what can be disallowed or (axed in The instant case, is th…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…on record. 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 fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the f…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…on record. 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 fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the f…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…on record. 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 fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the f…

Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2010-11 Jayprakash N Lakhani, Jcit-2, Block No.1-975/1950, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Kailash Colony, Ot Section, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Vs. Ulhansnagar, Kalyan West, Maharashtra-421005 Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aakpl5145M

…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:-…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Blockwell P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 616, 617& 618/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2009-10 & 2008-09)

…upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil 29 I.T.A. No. 616, 617 & 618/Mum/2016 Blockwell Pvt. Ltd. Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that restricting the additions…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Yogesh Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Acit-19(3), M/S Yogesh Construction, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 1/11, 1St Floor, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, 25- Harharwala Building, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 164/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yogesh Construction, The Acit-19(3), 1/11, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 25- Harharwala Building, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

…ITA No. 4038/MUM/2017 & CO No. 164/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 relying on the decision of ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 ITD 0428. The judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oil Cakes vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 and in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and also the order passed by the then CIT (A) in the assessee’s case for the A.Y. 2009-10. The revenue is in appeal against the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). 2. The revenue has raised the following effective grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. “Whether i…

ITO 10(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and upheld the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd. 10(1)(3), Plot No.1-4, Loyalka Lane, बनाम/ Room No.25B, Ground Opp. Aziz Compound, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabc17006E

…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 fair conclusion. The Hon'ble 3 M/s IVT Valves Pvt. Ltd. Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the fo…

Pramod S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4226/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Pramod S. Mehta The Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1191, 11 th Floor, Ward 19(2)(5). Siddhesh Villa CHS Ld., 1 st Matru Mandir, Room No. Vs. Parsiwada Lane, V.P. Road, 210, Tadeo Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400 004 400 007 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AABPM8854B अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : None प्रत्यथ…

Shri Jayesh Bhogilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…n record. 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 fair conclusion. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) held as under:- “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 Tribunal has recorded the fo…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…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. 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…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…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. 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…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…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. 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…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai vs. Ariha Diamond Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

…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. 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…