Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)
Simoni Gems, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... on 13 March, 2019 cites

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

9. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, the materials placed before me and the case laws relied on. I find from the material before me, that the suppliers have responded to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act, filed the account confirmations, filed affidavits deposing that they have supplied the materials, delivery of goods, payments were made through Account payee cheques and none of these evidences were considered by the Assessing Officer. No further investigation has been made by the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity 6 ITA NOs. 747 to 752/MUM/2018 M/s. Simoni Gems of these documents. The statements recorded by the investigation wing from the persons belonging to Bhanwarlal Jain Group were also not provided to the assessee in spite of request. Therefore, in the absence of any sort of enquiry by the Assessing Officer in my opinion the purchases made by the assessee cannot be treated as non-genuine. The statements on which the Assessing Officer relied on to make the disallowance were not provided to assessee and no opportunity was given to cross examine them and this makes the assessment bad in law for violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015 held that when the assessment was made on the basis of the statements recorded from third parties and if those statements were not provided nor cross examination was given to the assessee, the assessment order made based on those statement is bad in law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. on 14 June, 1993

In the case of CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal.), it has been held that payment made by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. This view had also found favour with the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Kachwala Gems, as brought out in the impugned order. It is now proposed to examine whether the appellant has been able to discharge the onus of proving that the purchases amounting to Rs.16,74,69,611/- made by it from the aforesaid 13 concerns are genuine. It is noticed from the record that the AO treated the aforesaid purchases from 13 parties as bogus or non-genuine not merely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing but also because the appellant failed to furnish the purchase orders, delivery challans/ angadia receipts etc. in respect of the said purchases of cut and polished diamonds. The absence of these supporting evidences lent credence to the AO's finding that the purchases shown to have been made by the appellant from aforesaid 13 concerns were nothing but accommodation entries without any actual movement or delivery of goods.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 330 - Full Document

Vama International, Mumbai vs Asst Cit 21(3), Mumbai on 15 February, 2018

15. Almost identical issue came up in the case of the M/s. Vama International v. I.T.O (supra) wherein the Assessing Officer treated the whole purchases are non-genuine, Ld.CIT(A) estimated the profit element from that purchases @12.5% the Coordinate Bench considering the evidences on record deleted the estimation made by the Ld.CIT(A) observing as under: -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next