What is CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. authority for?

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.?

252 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (355 ITR 498), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 37(1), Section 131, Section 69B, Section 1961, Section 115BBE, Section 153C.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (355 ITR 498)

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANIL TRANSPORT SERVICE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5435/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ito 41(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Anil Transport Service Room No.830, Kautilya B-102, Harshad Apartment, E.E. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Highway Behind Everad Nagar Sion Mumbai-400051 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Co No.90/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Transport Service Vs Ito 41(1)(1) B-102, Harshad Apartment, Room No.830, Kautilya Bhavan, E.E. Highway Behind Everad Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400051 Nagar Sion East, Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.V.Dharkar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DharkarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

…nn.com 385) has held that not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay M Mistry Construction P Ltd (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 Taxmann.com 44),In the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of 6 ITA No.5435/Mum/2025 and CO No.90/Mum/2026 Anil Transport Service RishabhdevTechnocable Ltd., [2020] 115 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay), the Jurisdictional High Court has held that in a case where the parties…

DCIT-7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MONSHER FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7002/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethdcit – 7(1)(1) Vs. Monsher Fire Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, 403, Tantia Jogani Estate 403, Tantia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Jogani Estate, Off. N.M. Joshi Marg, Next Road, To Lodha, Pavilion, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai-400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccm4650R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…grey market at lower rates but took bills from hawala dealers. The Court held that the entire purchase cannot be disallowed once sales are accepted. Similar views were taken in Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 ITD 428, Ahd. ITAT) and Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (355 ITR 498, Guj. HC). The consistent principle emerging from these decisions is that where sales are accepted and quantitative stock records are not doubted, the entire purchases cannot be added as bogus. What is taxable is only the profit element embedded in such purchases. Judicial authorities have estimated this element between 12.5% and 25% depending on…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S EI INSTRUMENTATION PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.Janani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 148Section 69C

…nly the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Gu)) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.)Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 74

…ourt in the case of Hariram Bhambhani (ITA No. 313 of 2013) held that only the profit attributable to the unaccounted sales can be brought to tax. He also placed reliance on the case of Simit P. Sheth (38 Taxmann.com 385),Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd. (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 Taxmann.com 44) etc.He further observed that the issue to be adjudicated is what is the reasonable profit percentage to be adopted for computing the profits arising from the alleged hawala purchases. It was stated that the CBDT through Instruction No. 2/08 dated 22/02/2008 had…

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. ROMIL DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, above appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2166/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: \nShri Sanjay R. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 74

…in the case of Hariram\nBhambhani (ITA No. 313 of 2013) held that only the profit attributable\nto the unaccounted sales can be brought to tax. He also placed reliance\non the case of Simit P. Sheth (38 Taxmann.com 385),Vijay M. Mistry\nConstruction P. Ltd. (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (355\nITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 Taxmann.com 44) etc.He further\nobserved that the issue to be adjudicated is what is the reasonable profit\npercentage to be adopted for computing the profits arising from the\nalleged hawala purchases. It was stated that the CBDT through\nInstruction No. 2/08 dated 22/02/200…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…nly the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…nly the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ARO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Dcit, Aro Equipments Private Limited Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Vs. Plot No.300, Aro Tower, Building, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aacca8471G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…nly the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.)Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for th…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1911, PIRAMAL vs. BADAMIDEVI TEJRAJ MUTHA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhriito – 19(1)(1) Vs. Badamidevi 501, 5Th Floor, Piramal Tejrajmutha Chambers, Lalbaug 67, Dr.Mg. Mohimtura Mumbai – 400012. Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwadalane, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Akipk1935E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250

…nly the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498(Guj) and in the case of CIT v. 6 Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no pur…

ARO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2514/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148

…1 ARO Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2514/Del/2023, A.Y.2010-11) ARO Equipments Private ACIT Limited C. R. Building, IP Estate, Plot No. 300, Phase-2, Vs. New Delhi Gurgaon, Hayrana PAN : AACCA8471G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/11/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.CIT (…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 453 & 454/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Sunder Das Sonkiya Vs. Tax, Central Circle-04, Jaipur Flat Sonkia Bhawan, SMS Highway Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKHPS 7413 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…2 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 1 (2) and the National Faceless Assessment Unit respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of dispute. Thus, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset, the Id. DR has submitted that the matter in ITA No. 453/JP/2024 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlin…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…Mangaluru Page 45 of 73 AY 20017-18: This being the position, how it could be treated as a bogus purchase in the hands of the assessee? In our opinion, the answer to this question is NO. 5.11 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay M. Mistry construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 46 of 73 “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was based on concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. It was not the case of the…