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 366,339 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.

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

Section 69C

…his 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 h…

Shri Jignesh V. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jignesh V. Parekh A-6, Ito, Ward 27(1)(5), Munisuvrat Darshan, Mumbai, Vashi Vs. Navroj Lanee, Ghatkopar Railway Station (West), Mumbai-400086. Complex, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aacpp3869L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 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). In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted the correct approach to arrive at the profit by estimating it @ 12.5% of the impugned amount of Rs.60,67,516/- shown from the alleged hawala parties. Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to Rs.7,58…

ITO WD 2(3), Thane vs. Jayesh Jamnadas Fifadra, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 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). Shri Jayesh J. Fifadra In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the above decision in Simit P. Sheth (supra) and restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases of Rs.2,15,55,520/- which amounts to Rs.26,94,440/-. We uphold the above order of t…

Jayesh J Fifadra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 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). Shri Jayesh J. Fifadra In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the above decision in Simit P. Sheth (supra) and restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases of Rs.2,15,55,520/- which amounts to Rs.26,94,440/-. We uphold the above order of t…

Solo Hardware P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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 M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. purchases. Th…

Dinesh S. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2012-13

…ment 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.” 7 Dinesh S. Jain 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…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…his 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, disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee had inflated the purchases and, accordingly, by pl…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…his 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, disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee had inflated the purchases and, accordingly, by pl…

Snehalata Ahnand Rane, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 3(3), Kalyan

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…his 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, disallowing the entire amount. He, however, was of the view that the assessee had inflated the purchases and, accordingly, by pl…

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 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.” 7.3. 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…

Ralf Jems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1574/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…his 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…

Shri Jayantilal K. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayantilal K Jain, Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), 35, Krishna Kunj, Kika Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Street, Gulalwadi, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aajpj8095K

…his 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 7 Jayantilal K. Jain 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…

Shri Ramesh C.Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1287/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…udgment 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.” Ramesh C. Shah 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…

Shri Ramesh C.Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1286/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…udgment 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.” Ramesh C. Shah 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…

Nikhil R. Dharia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1277/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil R Dharia, Acit-19(2), B-7, Utkarsh Tilak Nagar, Matru Mandir, बनाम/ V. P. Road, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Addpd8065A

Section 51

…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.” 4.4. 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…

Dhiraj Babulal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1827/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147

…his 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…

Mukesh P. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147

…his 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…

Mr.Piraram Chouhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)5, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1723/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…his 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…

Mr.Piraram Chouhan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)5, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1722/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…his 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…

M/S.Diamex Sourcing Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 5(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1245/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2013-14

…his 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 7 M/s Diamex Sourcing Private Limited, 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, ho…