CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Zakir Hussain Vasi Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Zakir Hussain Vasi The Income Tax Officer Flat No. E/7, 3Rd Floor, 26(3)(5), Mumbai Navjeevan Society, Near Vs. Shalimar Hotel, New Mill Road, Kurla East, Mumbai-400 072 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aovps0523H

…ggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 4.2.12 to 4.2.16 and by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) by observing as under: - “4.2.12 Thus in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the recent judgments quoted as above, it is observed that the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated cannot be ruled out and therefore in view of the above, the AO has not treated the entire purchases from the aforesaid parties to be…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Lab Devices India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 12(3)(3) Vs. M/S. Lab Device India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 224, 2Nd Floor, 112, Atlanta Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. W.E. Highway, M.K. Road, Near Virwwani Industrial Mumbai – 400 020 Estate, Goregaon (East) Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No: Aaabcl 0636 K Appellant .. Respondent

…product for sales which have been accepted by the department. 6.4 It is noted that only profit element is liable to tax in such case as was held in the case of: 1. CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC). 2. CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) (HC) 3. CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (HC) 4. ITO v. Permanand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (JD)(Trib) 5. Shri Madhukant B. Gandhi v. ITO ITA No. 1950/M/2009 Bench ‘B’ dt. 23.02.20100 (AY 2005- 06)(MUM.) (Trib.) 6. Sanjeev Woolen Mills v. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 6.5 In view of the above discussion it is seen that the…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Amoolya Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly this ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6294/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

…purchases made from the parties. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the order of AO in 9 I.T.A. No. 6294/Mum/2016 Amoolya Engineers Pvt. Ltd. subsequent year AY 2010-11 and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit ea…

Asstt CIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Late Manojkumar S. Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-17(2), Late Shri Manojkumar S. Room No.134, Gupta Through L/H बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Madhavi Gupta, Vs. M.K. Road, C/O- M/S Krishna Steel Mumbai-400020 Corporation, 110, First Floor, Arihant, Ahmedabad Street, Masjid Station (E), Mumbai-400009 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpg1861G

…ate Shri Manojkumar S. Gupta through L/H Madhavi Gupta 2.14. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, th…

United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO 13(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…l Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.794/Mum/2015) order dated 16/11/2016. 2.11. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. The case of the Rev…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…l Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.794/Mum/2015) order dated 16/11/2016. 2.11. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. The case of the Rev…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…l Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.794/Mum/2015) order dated 16/11/2016. 2.11. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. The case of the Rev…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Karp Impex Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6761, 6760 & 6759/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11)

…by Hon’ble Jurisidictional High Court in the case of Naresh K. Pahuja (2015) 54 taxmann.com 258. Therefore cosindering the peculiar upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus…

DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

…nn.com 258. Therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and while relying upon the following judgments:- 1) ClT vs Bholanath Poly Fab Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj). (HC), 2. CIT v Simit D, Sheth M/s Swan Energy Ltd.. (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj)-(HC) and 3. CIT vs. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market, we are of the considered view that res…

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

…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 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 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.09.2017 D…

Noorjahan Niyaz Ahmed Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

…ncy as well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. Estimation of profit ranging from 12.5% to 15% has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 taxman 385 (Guj), I direct the AO to take the GP @ 12.5% of the purchases. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. ITA No.5057/M/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 7. In this appeal, during the year, the AO found that assessee h…

Reliance Realty, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2011-12

…e assessee that the tiles purchased have been used by it, a fact which has not been repudiated by the lower authorities. Therefore, under these circumstances, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451 (Gujarat), only the profit element attributable to such doubtful purchases can be assessed to tax. In this context, I find that the only saving which can be effected by the assessee by making purchases outside the books is on account of sales tax, and in the instant case, rate of sales tax on the particular product is 12.5%. Therefore, following…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavana Steel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Ito – 19(1)(2), M/S Bhavana Steel, Room No. 204, Sabusidique Building, Matru Mandir, 1St Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aaefb9418R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Sashank Dundu (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

…to 6.5%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the AO has rightly made addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 High Court in Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451, (Guj). Since, the impugned order is erroneous; the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P. Sheth (supra). The Ld. CIT(A) has rig…

Sanjay Kailash Gupta, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Kailash Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, 707, A7, Kingstone Yogidham, Ward 3(4), Kalyan Murbad Road, Shop No. 1,2,3, Rani Mansion, Kasturigram Society, Vs. Kalyan (West) Khadakpada, Kalyan (West) Pan: Adtpg0574H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

…held the transaction bogus, however, restricted the addition to 12.5% taking into consideration the element of profit embedded in the said purchases in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) by raising the following grounds:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act…

Malay Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No. 5682/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Malay N. Sanghvi, I.T.O-8(3)(2) बिधम/ M-1, Kalpita Enclave Co-Op. Aayakar Bhavan, Housing Society, Sahar Road, Churchgage, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- 20 Mumbai-400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaahe1478G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 151,5682,6265,6463/Mum/2012,2013,2017 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA No. 5682/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Malay N. Sanghvi, I.T.O-8(3)(2) बिधम/ M-1, Kalpita Enclave Co-op. Aayakar Bhavan, Housing Society, Sahar Road, Churchgage, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- 20 Mumbai-400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN No. AAAHE1478G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : ITA No. 6463/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Inc…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpac Filters & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

…Mumbai Tribunal, has held that merely because the suppliers had not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A) one could not conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent/assessee. The Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. In view Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 of the cases discussed above, AO has wrongly made 100% disallowance. On the other hand since the as…

Mihir Overseas, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

…rchases is not justified, since the assessee has reconciled purchases with sales. Accordingly, by taking cue from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay Proteins Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 44) and CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth (2013)(356 ITR 451), the Ld CIT(A) that a portion of purchases may be sustained. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) sustained addition to the extent of 30% of value of purchases, which worked out to Rs.15,36,161/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. The Ld D.R strongly contended that the order of Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since the…

ITO 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. N.K. Ferromate(India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) R. No.567, P. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 32/40, Krishna Baug, Vs. M.K. Road, Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, Mumbai-400020 V.P. Road, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Income Tax Officer-5(2)(1), P. Ltd. R. No.567, बनाम/ 32/40, Krishna Baug, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Shop No.6, 2Nd Parshiwada, M.K. Road, V.P. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400004 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaccn4388N M/S N.K. Ferromate (India) Ltd.

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 2.10. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted to 12.5%. Admittedly, the…

V & V Pharma Industries, Thane vs. ACIT Cir. 3, Thane

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12)

…9C is no longer sustainable in law 19 I.T.A. No. 6056 & 6057/Mum/2016 considering the the Bombay High Court Judgment In the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterpries P Ltd (372 ITR 619) (Bom) and Gujarat High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth{2013} (356 ITR 451) (Guj) wherein restricting the addition to GP rate of 12.50% is approved. Accordingly I order and direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance to only 12.50% of the sum of Rs.1,930/-. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” Respectfully following the afore-stated…

ITO 32(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshan Gautam Salot, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-32(1)(4), Shri Darshan Gautam Salot, R. No.202, C-11, 2Nd Floor, A-3.4, Soni Tower, बनाम/ Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Ram Nagar, Borivali (East), Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400092 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Bmops4552G

…ses (SLP (C) No.s 769 of 2017, order dated 16/01/2017. 2.10. In such type of cases, broadly, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as this Tribunal has followed the decisions from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), CIT vs Bhola Nath Poly Fab. (P.) Ltd. (2013) 19 Darshan Gautam Salot 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and various other decisions of the Tribunal and the decision of M/s Nikunj Eximp(supra) from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, wherein, the aggregate disallowance was restricted t…