Saraswathi Oil Traders v. CIT

ITO 41(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. DEEPIKA ANIL AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed

…sessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified.\n1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.)\n2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.)\n3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)-\n4. SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC)\nIncome cannot be assessed on mere statement basis. For assessment there has to\nbe some evidence.\nIncome cannot be assessed on mere retracted statement If not material to\nprove\n1. Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court)\n2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.)\n3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Ta…

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

…e assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)- 4. SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC) Income cannot be assessed on mere statement basis. For assessment there has to be some evidence. Income cannot be assessed on mere retracted statement If not material to prove 1. Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.) 3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 2…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

…e assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)- 4. SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC) Income cannot be assessed on mere statement basis. For assessment there has to be some evidence. Income cannot be assessed on mere retracted statement If not material to prove 1. Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2. KailashbenManharlalChokshi v. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 466 (Guj.) 3. M. Narayanan & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 201 Taxman 2…

BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3)(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…d before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent, I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the add…

NAVIN SHANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 32(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…d before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent, I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the add…

NAVIN SHANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 32(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

…d before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi ITA Nos.4182, 4183 & 4184/M/2017 7 Mr. Navin Shantilal Mehta Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent, I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the add…

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e assessed by revenue without supporting material is not justified. 1. CIT V. BHUVANENDRA 303 ITR 235 (MAD.) 2. VINOD SOLANKI VS. UOI (233) ELT 157 (S.C.) 3. CIT V. KASHIRAM TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD [2006]284 ITR 61 (GUJ)- 4. SARASWATHI OIL TRADERS V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC) -» Income cannot be assessed on mere statement basis. For assessment there has to be some evidence. Income cannot be assessed on mere retracted statement If no material to prove 17 ITA NO. 1762 & 1763/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aakash Films Private Limited & M/s. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited 1.Meghraj Jain V. UOI (Bombay High Court) 2.…

ASST CIT 32(2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S MM CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S M.M. Construction, A-403, 32(2), Vs. 404, Jeevan Prabha, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Chandavarkar Road, Borivali 41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400092. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aagfm 5456 L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2021

…220 Taxmann 0141 (2014), it has been held that if the payments have been made by cheques and 'are reflected in the books of account of the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. 4.6 Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the addr…

ASST CIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MM CONSTRUCTION , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

…220 Taxmann 0141 (2014), it has been held that if the payments have been made by cheques and are reflected in the books of account of the assesses, no adverse Inference can be drawn. 4.6 Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellant that if the appellant has fulfilled his onus of making the payments by banking channels and has supplied the addr…

ACIT-4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VGC DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. ACIT 4(2)(1) Ltd. 6th floor, Room no. 642, बिधम/ 308/382, 1st floor, NNS Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Building, Chira Bazar, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Kalabadevi, Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCV5319C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi,DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.02.2020 Date of Hea…

MOHD RIZWAN MOHD KALLAN KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

…) Ltd. * [2013] 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bombay HC) 6 Addition cannot be made without ITO V / s Permanand [2008 25 SOT evidence: 11] CIT V /s M K Bros. [163 ITR 249] CIT V. Kashiram Textile Mills P Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 61 (GUJ) Saraswathi Oil Traders V. CIT [2000] 254 ITR 259 (SC)174 CTR 108 (SC) 7 AO relied on third party Kishan Chand Chella Ram v. CIT information without cross- [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) examination. Hence, can't be Marneedi Satyam V/s Masimukkula relied: Venkataswami [AIR 1949 Mad 689] ITO V/s Permanand [2008 25 SOT 11] 8 AO failed to discharge his duty to ITO V/s Permanand [2008 25 SOT prove the tr…

DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. NIPUN I THAKKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and issue raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT 25(1), Shri Nipun I. Thakkar, O/o Dy. Commissioner of 11, Krishna Krupa, Income Tax 25(1), Opp. Railway Crossing, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dahisar (East), Vs. Room No.202, Mumbai- 400 068 2nd Floor, PAN: AACPT2538C Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Mahaveer Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16.04…

ITO 32(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NISHA MAYUR KAMDAR, MUMBAI

The appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellate that if the appellant has fulfilled its onus of making the payments by cheque and has supplied the address of the…

NISHA KAMDAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

…High Court that merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee. Further it has been held in the case of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (Supreme Court) that when the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. To this extent I am in agreement with the appellate that if the appellant has fulfilled its onus of making the payments by cheque and has supplied the address of the…

ITO 32(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NAVIN SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito 32(2)(4) Vs. Shri Navin Shantilal Mehta R.No. 306, 3Rd Floor D/102, Shiv Kripa Nagar Pratyakshkar Bhavan Vidya Mandir Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Dahisar East Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm2720P Appellant) Respondent) .. Shri Navin Shantilal Mehta Vs. Ito 32(2)(4) C-11, 3Rd Floor D/102, Shiv Kripa Nagar Vidya Mandir Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Dahisar East Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 068 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm2720P Appellant) Respondent) ..

…also failed to produce the purchase parties before the AO." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon judgement in the case of CIT vs Nikunj Enterprises 373 ITR 619 and Saraswathi Oil Tnders vs CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) without appreciating that the facts involved in the appellant's case are different from the facts of the above case laws." 3. "The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT{A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored." 4. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground." 3. The grounds…

ASST CIR 32(3), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SWASTIK DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objection raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

…s also failed to produce the purchase parties before the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT (A) erred in relying upon judgment in the case of CIT vs. Nikun Enterprises 373 ITR 619 and Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) without appreciating that the facts involved in the appellant's case are different from the facts of the above case laws. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made on account of disallowance out of excess remuneration to Rs1,20,000/- as against addition made by the AO of R…

ITO 32(1)5, MUMBAI vs. INDUBHAI PURSHOTAM DAS VORA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3178 and 3179/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 and 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Indubhai Purushottamds Vora Room No.203, C-11, 2nd floor,, (HUF), बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B/302, Dwarkesh, L T Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Opp Diamond Cinema, Vs. Bandra (E), Borivali (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAAH10171G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri T A Kh…

ITO 32(1)5, MUMBAI vs. INDUBHAI PURSHOTAM DAS VORA (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ”, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM I.T.A. No.3178 and 3179/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 and 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Indubhai Purushottamds Vora Room No.203, C-11, 2nd floor,, (HUF), बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B/302, Dwarkesh, L T Road, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Opp Diamond Cinema, Vs. Bandra (E), Borivali (E), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400066 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAAH10171G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri T A Kh…

INDUBHAI PRUSHOTTAMDAS VORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Nk Pradhan, Am Assessment Year: 2007-08 Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Ito-32(1)(5) B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Opp. Diamond Cinema, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Assessee .. Revenue Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito-32(1)(5) Indubhai Purushottamdas Vora Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B/302, Dwarkesh, K. T. Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Opp. Diamond Cinema, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 092 Pan No. Aaapv 3168 Q Revenue .. Assessee

…of 6 ITA Nos. 5622 & 5620/M/15, 64 & 648/M/16 Assessment Year: 2007-08 5. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at 2.52% of the bogus purchases in both the years, relying on the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom). He also observed that the only profit element of the total component is in dispute, which needs to be added to the assessee’s returned income. Accordingly, he restricted the addition at 2.52% of the bogus purchases as profit. Aggrieved, in both the cases, Reve…

MANSUKHLAL H. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5645/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5646/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mansukhlal H Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3), (Prop. Of M/S United Engineering), Pratayksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, B-702, Marble Arch, Mumbai 51St Tps Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalps3521B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

…Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Tiwari, 220 taxmann 141, judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s Nikunj Enterprises 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarswati Oil Traders vs. CIT 254 ITR 259 (SC) and following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the Ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition to the extent of 13.85% holding that the profit element on the total component in dispute needs to be added to the income of the assessee. We further notice that the Ld. CIT (A) has taken the gross profit rate shown by the assessee for the assess…