CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

…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:- C.O. No.06 to 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj 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 amoun…

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Evergreen Engineering Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit -9(2)(2) V. M/S. Evergreen Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Room No.665A, 6Th Floor 35B, Mahal Industrial Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahakali Caves Road, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 093

…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. 6.1.30 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 parties…

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Panchavati Valves & Flanges P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledcit, Circle – 13(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, V. M/S Panchavati Valves & Flanges Pvt. Ltd.; Room No.218, Sumit Samarth Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, B-Wing, 503-A & B, 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Behind Jain Mandir, Aarey Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400062

…only 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 CTT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. 120131355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58 lTD 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…

Shekasa Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aaacs7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 14/09/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

…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…

ITO 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Yogiraj Powertech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 15(3)(2) V. M/S. Yogiraj Powertech Pvt Ltd. Room No.15 B, Ground Floor, 2Nd Floor, B-2,8,9 &10 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Groma House, Plot No.14C, Mumbai – 400 020 Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705

…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 ITD 428. 2.4.29 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 parties…

ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ravindra Ganesh Nene, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

…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 ITD 428. 2.4.29 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 parties…

Asst CIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ravindra Ganesh Nene, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunathan, Hon'Ble

…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 ITD 428. 2.4.29 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 parties…

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. T M Mohamedally, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-14(2)(2), M/S T M Mohamedally Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Hararwala Bldg. बनाम/ Earnest House, 112, Lohar Chawl, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aacft2448M

…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…

Kshitj Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…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…

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Acon Measurement P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit -9(1))(1), M/S Acon Measurement Pvt. Room No.260A, 02Nd Floor बनाम/ Limited, Aayakar Bhavan A-22, Nanddham Indl. Estate, Vs. M.K. Road Marol Maroshi Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaca5078K

…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:- C.O. No.112/Mum/2017 “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…

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…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.” 3.3. 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…

Kaysons Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.Cir.4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…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.” 3.3. 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…

Kaysons Agencies P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year:2007-08

…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.” 3.3. 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…

Maheshkumar D. Chandak, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2732/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Mahesh Kumar D. Chandak, Dcit 15(2), 102/104 Praveen House, बिधम/ Mumbai 2Nd Floor, 1St Pathan Street, Vs. 4Th Kumbharwadi Mumbai- 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Acypc2181J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Revenue) :

…ujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), wherein a similar issue was there before the High Court, as well as relying on the view arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj), wherein the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad, Bench in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428) was approved, thus concluded that there could be no uniform yardstick for estimating the rate of profit in respect of bogus purchases, as the same was bound to vary from business to business. The CIT(A) thus being of the considered view that the vari…

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…uch purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase 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). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to estimate profit @ 6.96% on the purchases of Rs.70,97,399/- in AY 2009-10 and @ 5.67% on the purchases of Rs.1,08,73,782/- in A.Y 2010-11. Thus we allow the 2nd ground of appeal for the AY 2009…

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 30(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

…uch purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase 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). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to estimate profit @ 6.96% on the purchases of Rs.70,97,399/- in AY 2009-10 and @ 5.67% on the purchases of Rs.1,08,73,782/- in A.Y 2010-11. Thus we allow the 2nd ground of appeal for the AY 2009…

Metal Power Analytical (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

…s were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in the books of account, only profit element embedded in such 9 purchases could be added to assessee’s income. The decision 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) was followed by the Hon'ble High Court. 8.3 In the instant appeal, the facts being similar, we have to ascertain the profit element embedded in such purchases which can be added to the income of the assessee. We find it just and fair to estimate 12.5% of the purchase cost of…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Royal Palms (India )P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…only 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 ofCIT v. Vijay M. MistryConstruction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT U. 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 lTD 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…

Nikopas Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…ies other than those mentioned in the books of account, only profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to assessee’s income. The Hon'ble High Court relied on the 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). Finally, the Hon'ble High Court held that the order of the Tribunal needed no interference. 7.2 It will be just and proper for us to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on the above issue. 7.3 In view of the above, the order of the learned CIT(A) directing…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…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 Feb (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 1TR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 11996] 58 lTD 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…