Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows appeals for assessment years 2009-12. Reassessment quashed, appeals allowed on merits.</h1> <h3>Sapankumar U Jain Versus Income-Tax Officer</h3> The tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12. The reassessment for 2009-10 was quashed due to non-service of ... Validity of Reopening u/s 147 - non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been categorically held that non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional defect and cannot get cured by section 292BB of the Act, the reassessment framed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is herewith quashed. Estimation of income - bogus purchases - profit percentage was restricted to 12.5 per cent. - HELD THAT:- The assessee from its side had discharged its onus by filing all the relevant documents together with the confirmation from the said supplier including the PAN card, Aadhaar card, Income-tax return details of the supplier, among other relevant details. Hence, it could be conclusively proved that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases and merely because notice under section 133(6) of the Act, which had been duly served but not responded by the supplier, no adverse inference could be drawn on the assessee. We also find that absolutely no adverse inference has been drawn on the lower authorities on the documents furnished by the assessee. Hence, no addition could be made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Vaman International P. Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Thus we hold that no addition could be made on account of alleged ingenuine purchases in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits are allowed for both the years. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Non-service of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time.3. Disallowance on account of bogus purchases.Detailed Analysis:1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. The case was reopened based on information from the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra, which was passed on to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO issued a notice under section 148, and the assessee responded by stating that the original return should be treated as a response to the notice under section 148.2. Non-service of Notice under Section 143(2) within the Prescribed Time:The assessee raised a crucial ground that the notice under section 143(2) was not served before the completion of assessment proceedings within the prescribed time. The tribunal found that the AO did not have proof of service of notice under section 143(2) for the assessment year 2009-10. This was confirmed by a letter from the AO dated November 20, 2019. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, which held that non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured by section 292BB of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment for the assessment year 2009-10 was quashed, and other grounds were not addressed as they became academic in nature.3. Disallowance on Account of Bogus Purchases:For the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the assessee challenged the disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. The purchases were made from M/s. Dimple Enterprises, a party listed as a tainted dealer by the Sales Tax Department. The AO issued a notice under section 133(6) to the supplier, which was served but not responded to. The assessee provided all relevant documents, including purchase bills, delivery challans, and bank statements showing payments by account payee cheques. Despite this, the AO disallowed the purchases, estimating the gross profit at higher percentages.The tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents and that the non-response to the notice under section 133(6) by the supplier should have led the AO to issue a summons under section 131. The tribunal found no adverse inference on the documents provided by the assessee and cited the Bombay High Court decision in Pr. CIT v. Vaman International P. Ltd., which held that without corresponding purchases, sales could not have been made. The tribunal concluded that no addition could be made on account of alleged ingenuine purchases and allowed the appeals for both years on merits. The grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 were left open.Conclusion:The tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, quashing the reassessment for 2009-10 due to non-service of notice under section 143(2) and allowing the appeals for 2010-11 and 2011-12 on merits regarding the disallowance of bogus purchases.Summary Table:| ITA No. | AY | Appeal By | Result ||----------------|----------|-----------|---------|| 5204/Mum/2018 | 2009-10 | Assessee | Allowed || 5205/Mum/2018 | 2010-11 | Assessee | Allowed || 5206/Mum/2018 | 2011-12 | Assessee | Allowed |Order pronounced on November 25, 2021, by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found