Shwetambar Steels v. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT

294 ITR 316High Court2007#1209 most cited

What is Shwetambar Steels v. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT authority for?

Where purchases are found to be bogus and the cash is siphoned off, additions made by the Assessing Officer are sustained. This applies when the assessee cannot produce suppliers who are found to be providing bogus bills without actual dealing of goods.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shwetambar Steels v. ITO Ahmedabad · Ganesh Rice Mills v. CIT · 294 ITR 316 · bogus purchases · siphoned off cash · section 69C · section 145(3) · accommodation entry · genuineness of transaction · production of suppliers

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69CSection 68Section 37Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 145accommodation entrysection 69csection 133(6)genuineness of the transactionreassessment proceedingssection 68section 148section 142(1)section 13appeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing Shwetambar Steels v. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT

Noorjahan Niyaz Ahmed Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5056/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Chaurasia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)

…. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim of the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6056/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…each case. Some of them are listed, here as under: 9 I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 100% disallowance of bogus / unverifiable purchases was upheld, in following cases: (i) CIT Vs La Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Del) (ii) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs CIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All) (iii) Khandelwal Trading Co. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TT] (JP) 261 (iv) Swetambar Steels Ltd. vs. ITa 707 / 1075 / 1262/ 1263 / JD (2002) I.TAT (Ahd) In the case of Swetambar Steels Ltd., The Hon 'ble ITAT has confirmed the disallowance of the bogus purchase in entirety stating that the purchase shown from the respective parties were found in-ge…

ITO 29(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jayprkash D. Barbhaya, Mumbai

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3606/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan, D.R
Section 133(6)

…al is partly allowed. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Shri Jayprakash D. Barbhaya Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Aas Mohammed Khan (Prop.Perfect Steel Corporation), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 26(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5034/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

For Appellant: Shri Aas Mohemmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)

…ppeal raised by the appellant is partly allowed.” 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Kalyan, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Devchand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 4243/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Dinesh Devchand Sanghvi, 205, Jom Villa, 2Nd Floor, Ward 3(2), Kalyan, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kalyan-Murbad Road, Dombivali East Nr. Sbi, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Pan: Amups0932R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Bindu D. Sanghavi, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Bindu D. Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)

…e result the ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Mangalmurti Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2 Panvel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the asessee as well as the revenue are

ITA 3786/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh) & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…entries and no real business has ever been carried out. The CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts and also by relying upon plethora of judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills vs CIT 294 ITR 316(All) held that purchases from such parties are non genuine and, therefore, the work-in-progress shown in the current year is reduced by an amount of Rs.5,54,863 on account of inflation of purchases. Facts remain unchanged. The assessee failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, we are inc…

ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kanak Alloys Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 2

…ortion of the order of ITAT is extracted below:- “4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Shekhar M Kharote, Thane

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5064/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am The Deputy Commissioner Shekhar M Kharote Of Income Tax Prop. Of Riya Associates Circle-3, Room No. 02, 6 Th 1902, Whitfield, Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Hiranandani Meadows, Off. Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)- Pokhran Road No. 2, 400604 Pokhran Thane (W)-400 067 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aeepk8183L

For Appellant: Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM The Deputy Commissioner Shekhar M Kharote of Income Tax Prop. Of Riya Associates Circle-3, Room No. 02, 6 th 1902, Whitfield, Vs. Floor, Ashar IT Park, B-Wing, Hiranandani Meadows, Off. Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W)- Pokhran Road No. 2, 400604 Pokhran Thane (W)-400 067 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No.AEEPK8183L Revenue by : Ram Tiwari, DR Assessee by : Subodh Ratnaparkhi, AR Date of hearing: 26-10-2017 Date of pronouncement : 10-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is ari…

Sun Star Advertinsing P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3598/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Sun N Star Advertising Acit- Circle-3, Pvt. Ltd., Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Wagle Estate, D-303, Anant Laxmi Chamber, Vs. Gokhale Road, Road No.16-Z, Naupada, Thane – 406 602 Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aaics8518C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jayant K. Bhatt, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

…e profits. In view of these facts, this is a case where the entire cash has been siphoned off by debiting the bogus purchases. Therefore, following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Sri Ganesh Rice Mills (294 ITR 316), the addition of Rs.31,15,407/- made by the AO is sustained. The AO has not applied the provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act in the present case as alleged by the appellant company. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 3 M/s. Sun N Star Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D…

Income Tax Officer-13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sonal Dye Chem Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-13(2)(2), M/S. Sonal Dye Chem Pvt. Room No.147, 1St Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. C-101, Blue Bell Tower, M.K. Road, Eksar Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai –20 Mumbai-400 092 Pan: Aaics3288F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. N. Hemalatha, Sr.A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rahim Chotaliya, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. N. Hemalatha, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahim Chotaliya, D.R
Section 133(6)

…,121/- The grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” 5. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, 3 M/s. Sonal Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd. the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of…

Anil Popatlal Udeshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 40/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Anil Popatlal Udeshi, Income Tax Officer – Birla Mansion No.2, 19(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Dr. Dd Sathe Marg, Vs. Prathana Samaj, Mumbai - 07 Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaapu1762D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Anil Popatlal Udeshi, Income Tax Officer – Birla Mansion No.2, 19(1)(1), 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Dr. DD Sathe Marg, Vs. Prathana Samaj, Mumbai - 07 Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AAAPU1762D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by th…

Kainya & Associates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 211/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Kumar Raj, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 271

…2. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.” 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Karp Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6654/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Karp Impex Ltd., The Asstt. Commissioner Ge-3051, G Block, Of Income Tax-5(2)(1), 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabck1823F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suman Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…is partly allowed.” 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly we have heard Ld. D.R. and Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Narsi Devji Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 540/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-22(2), Shri Narsi Devji Patel, 315, Piramal Chambers, Flat No.308, Mangal Gyan, 12Th Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Near Ram Mandir, Khar (W) Mumbai -52 Pan: Aacpp 3084H (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Narsi Devji Patel, Office Of The Acit-22(2), 3Rd Flat No.301, Mangal Gyan, 315, Floor, Piramal 12Th Road, Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Near Ram Mandir, Mumbai – 400 012 Khar (W) Mumbai -400052 Pan: Aacpp 3084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 133(6)

…arties and assessee is in appeal in respect of the addition as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) against 7 parties. 6. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). 7. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 385 (Guj). The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee had submitted all the evidences to show that there was a genuine transaction with some of the parties and in respect of those parties assessee has filed the 5 Shri Narsi Devj…

Pristine Engineering Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5879/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pristine Engineering Acit, Ward 20(2)/Cit Services, City 20, B-34, Nand Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Vs. Lalbaug, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafp1771B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)

…manner. The ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…disallowance of bogus purchases, have been upheld. So. me of them are listed, here as under; 100% disallowance of bogus / unverifiable purchases was upheld, in following cases (i) CIT Vs LaMedica(2001)250ITR575(Del) . (ii) Sri Ganesh Rice Mills VsCIT (2007) 294 ITR 316 (All) (iii) Khandelwal Trading Co. Vs ACIT (1996) 55 TTJ (JP) 261 (iv) Swetambar Steels Ltd. vs. ITO 707 / 1075 / 1262 / 1263 / JD (2002) ITAT(Ahd) In the case of Swetambar Steels Ltd., The Hon 'ble ITAT has confirmed the disallowance of the bogus purchase in entirety stating that the purchase shown from the respective parties were found in-genui…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Amar Construction Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 1156/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Office Of The Acit 25(2), M/S. Amar Construction R. No.508, C-10, Corporation, 5Th Floor, 6, Chunawala Building, Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dixit Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaefa 1093P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashi S. Varma, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shashi S. Varma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 133(6)

…wed. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.” 6. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted 3 M/s. Amar Construction Corporation quantitative detai…

DCIT Circle - 3, Thane vs. Shivram Narayan Kelkar, Thane

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5917/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Shivram Narayan Income Tax, Kelkar, Circle-3, Room No.02, Prop. Of M/S. Omega Lab 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Chemical, 1St Floor, Sanyog, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Ghantali Temple, Thane (W)-400 604 Thane (W) – 400 602 Pan: Abcpk 1719R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 37

…d. All the grounds of appeal are disposed off accordingly.” 5. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

R R Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3240/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Acit 13(2) B-9/10, Kanmoor House, Mumbai 281/287, Narshi Natha Vs. Street, Mumbai- 400 009 Pan: Aaafr 3906N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A.C. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. & Shri R.P. Meena, Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…o 4 are partly allowed.” 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in 3 M/s. R.R. Enterprises the cases of Shwetambar Steels vs. ITO Ahmedabad and Ganesh Rice Mills vs. CIT (294 ITR 316). The facts in the present case show that assessee could not produce the parties from whom goods are stated to have been purchased. The suppliers were found to be engaged in providing bogus bill without actual dealing of goods. In this regard, the assessee has stated that they had submitted quantitative details of stock with respect of the sales…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jai Prakash Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 3202/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri Jai Prakash Jindal, Ward 20(2)(1), (Prop. Of M/S. Three A Room No.216, Brothers), Vs. Piramal Chamber, 19/8, Madhkar Chs.,. Lalbaug, R.A. Kidwai Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aaapj6514A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri Jai Prakash Jindal, Ward 20(2)(1), (Prop. of M/s. Three A Room No.216, Brothers), Vs. Piramal Chamber, 19/8, Madhkar CHS.,. Lalbaug, R.A. Kidwai Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai-400 031 PAN: AAAPJ6514A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The present…