Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.04 seconds)
Documents citing Asst Cit 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs Owens Corning Enterprises (India ) ... on 21 March, 2018

Dcit 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai on 23 March, 2018

(i) The appellant has submitted that during assessment proceedings, the sales were notsuspected. The appellant has contended that the books of accounts as well as sales have not been doubted by the AO, and hence the purchases are to be held as genuine. I find the said contention of appellant not without merit, since the AO has not found any fault with the quantitative information of purchases and sales submitted by appellant, and the AO cannot accept the one limb while ignore the other, I find that in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Exirnp Enterprises(P) Ltd[2013] 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that where sales supported the purchases and payment was made through banks, merely because suppliers had not appeared before AO, the purchase could not be treated as bogus.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Asst Cit 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs N R Corporation, Mumbai on 15 February, 2019

1. the AO has formed his view about the bogus nature of the purchases made by the appellant from the above parties on the basis of non-compliances of notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act. In my opinion, only on the basis non-compliance of notices u/s T33(G) regarding above mentioned three parties, cannot be Taken as The sole basis to Treat the entire purchases from These parties as bogus or non-genuine. The AQ is required to make further in-depth independent investigation on the issue. On the given set of facts and circumstances and without appreciating The evidences submitted by the appellant during assessment proceedings, entire purchases from These parties cannot be held to be bogus. I! has not been appreciated that the goods shown To be purchased from these parties were used in the business of The appellant and without which, corresponding Turnover would not possible. Thus, there ought to be purchases made and hence, entire disallowance is not justified. b. in this regard. I find the ratio raid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Exlmp Enterprises (P.) Ltd., quite relevant wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Jain,Mumbai vs National Faceless Appeal Centre ... on 4 December, 2025

w. CIT vs. NikunjEximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd (201) 5Taxmann.com84 (Bom)"Whether merely because suppliers had not appeared before Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), it could not be concluded that purchases were not made by assessee - Held, Yes. Further, there were confirmation letters filed by thesuppliers, copies of invoices for purchases as well as copies of bank statement all of which would indicate that the purchases were in fact made. In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the 39 ITA No. 546/Mum/2025 Rakesh Jain., Mumbai.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs Jigar V. Shah, Mumbai on 12 February, 2019

The Ld. A.R. of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Nikunj Enterprises (P.) Ltd." (2013) 35 taxman.com 384 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the findings of the tribunal that where the assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers and stock reconciliation statements, sale of purchased goods was not doubted, the transactions were supported with evidences and confirmations, in such an event merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not genuine.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asst Cit 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs N.R Cororation, Mumbai on 29 August, 2018

1. the AO has formed his view about the bogus nature of the purchases made by the appellant from the above parties on the basis of non-compliances of notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act. In my opinion, only on the basis non-compliance of notices u/s T33(G) regarding above mentioned three parties, cannot be Taken as The sole basis to Treat the entire purchases from These parties as bogus or non-genuine. The AQ is required to make further in-depth independent investigation on the issue. On the given set of facts and circumstances and without appreciating The evidences submitted by 4 ITA. No.1712M/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 the appellant during assessment proceedings, entire purchases from These parties cannot be held to be bogus. I! has not been appreciated that the goods shown To be purchased from these parties were used in the business of The appellant and without which, corresponding Turnover would not possible. Thus, there ought to be purchases made and hence, entire disallowance is not justified. b. in this regard. I find the ratio raid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Nikunj Exlmp Enterprises (P.) Ltd., quite relevant wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that - 'When the assesses have filed letter of confirmations of the suppliers, Bank statements highlighting the payment entries through account payee cheque copies of stock reconciliation statements before the AC; and merely because the suppliers did not appear before the AQ, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by We assessee. The AQ cannot disallow the purchases on the basis of suspicion because the suppliers were not produced before them.' c. The facts and circumstances as outlined above, clearly suggest That the purchases of materials by the appellant cannot be doubted but a major lacuna in these transactions is the nature of the purchases from the parties in question, as they could not be located at the given addresses. Thus the purchases prices shown on These invoices are not subjected to verification and as such it was difficult to establish the correctness of the purchase prices paid for the materials purchased from them. Such verification of the sale price shown on the invoices/bills was necessary to ascertain the correctness of the profits shown by the appellant for the period under consideration. This verification was also vital to determine as to whether the purchase prices shown on the are as per prevailing market prices of The materials purchased and to ascertain that the price paid for the materials purchased from these parties are not over invoiced In the absence of any such verification of the correctness of the price paid for the materials purchased by The appellant, the purchase price paid as mentioned on the invoices/bills cannot be accepted as the correct price paid for the goods purchased from such parties. In view of the same, the possibility of over-invoicing of the materials purchased to reduce the profits, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the gross profit rate shown by the appellant for the year under consideration cannot be relied upon In the circumstances, [he correct approach in such transactions would be to estimate the additional baneful or profile eared on these purchases and noi to disallow entire purchases from these parties. The disallowance of entire purchases from these parties would not be logical and would amount to travesty of justice. In my view either the purchases from thr-se parties are over invoiced or the purchases were actually made but not from the parties from which it was claimed to have been made and instead may have been purchased from grey market without proper billing or documentation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1