CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

355 ITR 498High Court2013#338 most cited

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.

252

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. · 355 ITR 498 · bogus purchases income addition · hawala purchases profit element · unaccounted purchases · section 69B · section 37(1) income tax · reasonable profit margin addition · Gujarat High Court bogus purchases · profit element embedded in purchases

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 131Section 69BSection 1961Section 115BBESection 153CSection 44ABSection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 69bsection 292csection 292section 44absection 201section 29section 69ccommissioner (appeals)escapement of incomesection 37(1)section 133asection 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5096/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-1(3)(1), M/S Sovika Chemicals Pvt. Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, B/2, Parekh Mahal, 80, Vs. M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacs5390N

Section 69C

…is court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3 Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5019/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

Section 69C

…is court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3 Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

Srikem Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6399/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Srikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Acit-8(2) 311 Jogani Industrial Estate Mumbai. Vs. Chunabhatti Mumbai-400022 Pan No. Aadcs5022Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. J. Ravindra, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2017

For Appellant: Mr. J. Ravindra, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). M/s Srikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 5 We are of the considered view that in the instant case profit be estimated in the light of the above decisions. Facts being similar, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to estimate the profit @ 12.5% on the said purc…

ITO WD 29(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Navin J. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3134/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. T.A. Khan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). Mr. Navin J. Doshi Facts being similar, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the profit @ 12.5% on the said purchases of Rs.2,18,12,572/- for the AY 2008-09 and Rs.3,13,73,278/- for the AY 2010-11. Thus we confirm the profit of Rs.27,26,572/- for the AY 2008-0…

ITO 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inmac Computers P.L Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5562/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). M/s Inmac Computers Pvt. Ltd. 4 Facts being similar, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in estimating the profit @ 12.5% on the said purchases of Rs.54,79,885/- which comes to Rs.6,84,985/-. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…uch 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, there cannot be sale without purchases. The case of the Revenue is that the…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2) Cen RG 4(2), Mumbai vs. Prateek Vijay Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 3663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cen Cir 4(2) Vs. Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Cen. Rg. 4, R.No.411, New Harileela House, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Vs. Acit Rg 12(1) Now Transferred New Harileela House, To Acit Cen Cir 4 (2) 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of law arose in such estimation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also relied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins 58 IT.D 428. 2.4.30 . In the case of Vijay Proteins (supra), the Hon'ble ITAT was seized with a case of bogus suppliers of oil cakes where 33 parties were found to be bogus by the departmental authorities even though payments were made to the said parti…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. T A George Kutty, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 15/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3 Shri T.A. George Kutty Room No. 02, 6Th Prop. Of M/S G.K. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Construction B 843, Midc, Wagle Indl. Dakak Engg., Estate, Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W)-400604. Thane-400607 Pan No. Adopg7694M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ition, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). 5 We find that the disallowance of Rs.5,29,058/- made by the Ld. CIT(A) is in order. Accordingly, we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/10/2017. (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 11/10/2017 Rah…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 4373/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 69C

…s court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

Nehal Hasmukh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar &
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ition, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). As mentioned hereinbefore the assessee failed to substantiate his claim of expenditure of Rs.2,25,72,581/- made from 30 parties in AY 2009-10; Rs.2,43,30,038/- from 20 parties in AY 2010-11 and Rs.2,81,43,532/- from 41 parties in AY 2011-12. We have delineated hereinbefore th…

Chandrika Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2833/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Chandrika Himmatlal Ito-32(1)(2) Shah,202, Samarpan 2Nd Floor, C-11, Vs. Building, Rokadia Cross Pratyaskar Bhavan, Bkc, Lane, Borivali West, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bppps0023A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Virag H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Virag H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ion, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to a similar view taken in 6 the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to estimate profit @ 12.5% on the purchases of Rs.69,56,460/-. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/10/2017. (MA…

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Abdul Kayyum Khan, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2729/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(1), Shri Abdul Kayyum Khan 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. M/S Anjur Steel Traders Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada 1105/2-3, Dharni Arcade, Kalyan. Opp. Octroi Naka, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Angpk6700L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

…ition, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition to 15% of the bogus purchases by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P. Seth (supra). Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pro…

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Hbs Mall Nahur, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 817/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.VidhyadharFor Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 302

…embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of law arose in such estimation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also relied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins 58 LTD 428. 6.11 The motive behind obtaining bogus bills thus, appears to be inflation of purchase price ^d as to suppress true profits. Considering the facts of the case as well as the various case laws cited (supra) especially in the case of CIT vs. S…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Pushpak Auxichem P.Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, 804, Iris, 8Th Floor, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Regency Estate, Bldg. No.7, Kalyan (West), Dayaneshwar Ngar, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301 Shill Road, Dombivali (East), Thane (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…s court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1 बनाम/ House No. 1, Green Park, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. A-Wing, 1St Floor, Wayale Nagar Khandakpada, Bhiwandi-421302 Kalyan (W), Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aajcs1619M

…s court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 2.3. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

Mayur Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2906/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 51Section 69C

…is court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 3.2. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee…

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Greases & Sepcialites P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 475/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-14(3)(2), 455, M/S. Standard Greases & Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Specialities Pvt. Ltd. M.K. Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 बिधम/ 101, Ketan Apartment, 233, R.B. Mehta Marg, Patel Vs. Chowk, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai-400 077 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs2136B (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 475/Mum/2016 AY: 2011-12 DCIT Vs. M/s Standard Greases IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 475/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT-14(3)(2), 455, M/s. Standard Greases & Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Specialities Pvt. Ltd. M.K. Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 बिधम/ 101, Ketan Apartment, 233, R.B. Mehta Marg, Patel Vs. Chowk, Ghatkopar(E), Mumbai-400 077 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AALCS2136B (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri V.Vidyadhar…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunita Amit Patanwala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1195/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 144/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ........................... Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O. No. 143/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: ShriVimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the profit @ 12.5% of the concerned purchases. It is not @ 18.5% as submitted by the Ld. counsel in the cross objection filed. following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court mentioned hereinbefore we uphold the order of the…

ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunita Amit Patanwala, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1194/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 144/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ........................... Assessment Year: 2010-11 & C.O. No. 143/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: ShriVimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated the profit @ 12.5% of the concerned purchases. It is not @ 18.5% as submitted by the Ld. counsel in the cross objection filed. following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court mentioned hereinbefore we uphold the order of the…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is court in a judgment dated August 16, 2011, in Tax Appeal No. 679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.” 5.3. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- Shri Kantilal C. Jain “6. As is apparent from the facts noted hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) after appreciating the evidence on record has found that the assessee had in fact made the purchases and, hence, the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the vi…