Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Tubes India, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee and the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2230 To 2232/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Tubes India The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), बनाम/ 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaet 4281 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3145 To 3147/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) The Asst. Cit, Circle 19(3), Tubes India बनाम/ Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, 11/15, 2Nd Pathan Street, Kumbharwada 5Th Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) : (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Arising Out Of The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Assessee’S Case Read As Under:

…vidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon’ble Apex Court decisions. 16.…

Dilip B Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5560/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dilip B. Shah Ito-14(1)(1), बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, 5/20 A, Gita Building, Gamdevi, Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aapps 9105 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

…vidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). In the present case, the assessee wants that the 6 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO unassailable fact that the suppliers are non-existent and, thus, bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of Hon’bl…

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naitik Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito -19(2)(4), M/S Naitik Gems Room No. 217, Matru Mandir, 1304, Prasad Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400007. Opera House, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaafn5200F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…oncept of burden of proof, onus of proving the claim is always on the person who makes such claim. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Oayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to· find out the reality 5 ITA No. 6718/M/2016- M/s Naitik Gems and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human pr…

Samkit Diamonds Exporters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…with the concept of burden of proof, onus of proving is always on the person who makes the claim. While dealing with the issue of deciding the burden of proof, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Durgaprasad More 82 ITR 540 and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 has held that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not real and that Taxing Authorities are entitled to look into surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The Hon'ble court also held th…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

…case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

…case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

…case of the Revenue. It is noteworthy that while coming to a particular conclusion, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court considered following judicial pronouncements:- i. CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) (para 3), ii. Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) (para 4), iii. CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P.) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 3…

Chandra N Hingorani, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Smt Chandra N. Hingorani The Income Tax Officer 10-A, Jeevan Jagruti, Dr. 23(1)(3), Vs. 1St Ambedkar Road, Bandra(W), Floor, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400 050 Tadreo, Mumbai-400 007 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aapph8893K

…h huge loss and the transaction was arranged in a manner to defraud the Revenue of its legitimate taxes. Accordingly, by applying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC), Sumati Dayal vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 154 ITR 148 (SC), disallowed the long term capital loss claimed on account of sale unquoted equity shares at ₹ 1,45,50,000/- Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the action of the AO vide Para 2.…

DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Minex Metallurgical Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7345/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Dcit – 10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Minex Metallurgical Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Company Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 301, Rajguru Apartments, Mumbai - 400020 New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm7315B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7346/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit – 10(2)(2), Vs. M/S Minex Metallurgical Room No. 216A, 2Nd Floor, Company Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 301, Rajguru Apartments, Mumbai - 400020 New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm7315B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 17/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 23/09/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

…sessee. However, the notices were received back un-served with the remarks ‘not known’ in two cases and received no reply in respect of remaining two parties. Accordingly, the AO relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal vs.CIT 214 ITR 801 and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), made addition of the total amount of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,08,50,022/-, Gross Profit on bogus purchases @ 4% amounting to Rs. 4,34,000/- and commission paid for arranging bogus purchases @ 1% amounting to Rs. 1,08,500/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 17,55,96,81…

Mrunal Shamsunder Naik, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

Bench: Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 911/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…, the Tribunal can consider probabilities properly arising from the facts alleged or proved and by doing so the Tribunal does not indulge in conjectures, surmises or suspicions. The Apex Court expressed a similar view in the case of Sumati Dayai v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 / 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and held that the decision of an adjudicating body based on surrounding circumstances and human probabilities is not bad in law and deserves to be upheld. In the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Cr0 (1985) 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11, the Apex Court held that colourable devices are not part of legitimate tax planning. 6.3 It Is fou…

Muffazal Hakim Penwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3740/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Muffazal Hakim Penawala Cit(A)-28, India House, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, बनाम/ Shop No. 1-2, 246, A. R. Street, Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 1934 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

…eness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. GT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayai Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in the case of CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CtT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). (iv) The purchases from hawala operators fall within the ambit of the term 'Colourable device' an…

Reliant Pipes & Tubes P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3383/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Reliant Pipes & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-5(3)(1), बनाम/ 3/5, Ground Floor, Sakar Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr 8444 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:

…aken as cogent evidence of purchases. In light of the overwhelming evidence the revenue authorities cannot put upon blinkers and accept these purchases as genuine. This proposition is duly supported by Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. In the present case the assessee wants that the unassailable fact that the suppliers are non- existent and thus bogus should be ignored and only the documents being produced should be considered. This proposition is totally unsustainable in light of above Apex Court decisions. 12. I further find that Hon’ble…

Meru Impex, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2660/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Meru Impex Acit-Circle 17(2), बनाम/ 15, 1St Floor, Agiary Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, Osman Manzil, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafm 6289 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.01.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2007-08. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 10% Of Bogus Purchase Amounting To Rs.4,99,55,341/-.

…test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). (iii) The purchases from hawala operators falls within the ambit of the term 'colourable devices' and the Hon'ble Supreme Co…

Eastern Sales Agencies, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2186/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs. Chitra Agarwal, Asst. Cit-16(1), बनाम/ C/O. Laxmi Ventures India Ltd. Mumbai 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipa 3251 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha

…early indicate that the assessee has entered into the sham transactions with the help of group companies of Shri Mukesh Choksi. The paper works created in this regard are merely smokescreen. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) 13 Mrs. Chitra Agarwal vs. Asst. CIT has expounded that the Revenue authorities cannot put on blinkers, but have to look into the surrounding circumstances as well. Hence, I find that the addition in this case is properly justified. I further note that this tribunal in the case of Disha N…

Kailash A Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(1)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2334/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Kailash A. Kothari Ito, Ward 13(1)(3), बनाम/ 128/130, Sarang Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Pranali Dixit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2334/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Kailash A. Kothari ITO, Ward 13(1)(3), बनाम/ 128/130, Sarang Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Pranali Dixit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.09.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.11.201…