Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (12) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... PER G.S. PANNU, AM : The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-14, Mumbai dated 29.09.2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Mumbai dated 30.10.2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. In this appeal, the only issue is with regard to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ITR 451 (Guj.) and only a part representing the profit element embedded in the unsubstantiated purchases is added to the returned income. Support has also been drawn from the judgements of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd., 355 ITR 498 (Guj.). 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the said concern, M/s. Amar Enterprise figures in the list of hawala dealers, i.e. parties who were merely issuing bills but not actually transacting in the goods stated therein. While the orders of the authorities below reveal that the purchases amounting to Rs. 14,86,450/- were not properly substantiated by the assessee, but it also reflects the plea of the assessee that the material corresp....