CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.

P S Auto Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

…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…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. Ward-1(3), बनाम/ 241/Business-2, Kasturi Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, Vs. Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Manpada Wayle Nagar, Road, Dombivali (East), Khadak Pada, Thane-421201 Kalyan-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…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:- “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 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…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…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

…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…

Core Energy Systems P.Ltd, Dombivali vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Core Energy Systems Acit-Circle -1, Kalyan. Private Limited, Vs. Plot-X-16, Prathamesh Vyapari Sankul, Behind Kamat Hospital, Midc, Dombivli-421 203. Pan No. Aaccc 4753 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Krunal Tate, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikeyan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2018

…the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to 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). That being the position, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to estimate the profit @ 12.5% on the disputed purchases of Rs.36,73,217/- and bring to tax Rs.4,59,150/- in place of Rs.36,73,217/- done by him. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.…

Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Haware Construction P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

…the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to 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). Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. We uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal filed by the revenue. 4. The 2nd ground of appeal raised by the revenue is that th…

Dinesh R. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Dismissed

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1876/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dinesh R. Shah (Legal बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(3)(2), Matru Heir Of Late Shri Mandir, Nana Chowk Vs. Rugnathmal A. Shah), 29, Mumbai-400007. Trimbak, Parshuram Street, 5Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aktps4623G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. N. Hemlatha (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Erred In

…nt embedded in such purchases could be added to the assesses 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 1TD 428. 7.8 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CJT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 FTR 451 (Guj), upheld the decision of the ITAT, which confirmed the addition @12«5% of the total bogus purchase. Taking into account the facts of the case, the Hon'ble…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…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.” 10.6. 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…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…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.” 10.6. 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 Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…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.” 10.6. 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…

Pravin V. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst RG 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pravin V. Mehta C/O Asstt. Commissioner Of Shankarlal Jain & Vs. Income Tax, Range- Associates, 12, Engineer 24(3)(1), C-11, Building, 265, Princess Pratykshkar Bhavan, Street Mumbai-400020. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400051. Pan No. Aahpm116E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.L. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Somnath M. Wajale, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018

…the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to 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). That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Following the above decisions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to…

Bhakti Developers, Ambernath vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Bhakti Developers 2Nd Deputy Commissioner Floor, Nandi Commercial Vs. Of Income Tax Circle-2, Complex, Near Dns Bank, Kalyan. Station Road, Ambernath- 421501. Pan No. Aaifb0301R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Somnath M. Wajale, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2018

…ot entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of M/s Bhakti Developers 5 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). That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to restri…

Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year:2010-11 Jayprakash N Lakhani, Jcit-2, Block No.1-975/1950, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Kailash Colony, Ot Section, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Vs. Ulhansnagar, Kalyan West, Maharashtra-421005 Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aakpl5145M

…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…

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

…isallowance to 12.5% of the purchases has been decided by the Tribunal sustaining the order of the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451], CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd., [355 ITR 498] and CIT v. Bhola Nath Poly Fab [355 ITR 290]. Therefore Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Tribunal the appeals of the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 may be considered for disposal. 3. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the or…

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Ineriors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

…isallowance to 12.5% of the purchases has been decided by the Tribunal sustaining the order of the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451], CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd., [355 ITR 498] and CIT v. Bhola Nath Poly Fab [355 ITR 290]. Therefore Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view of the order of the Tribunal the appeals of the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 may be considered for disposal. 3. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the or…

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kba Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-10(1)(2), Mumbai M/S Kba Room No. 651, Aayakar Infrastructure Pvt. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd., 31, Jai Hind Mumbai-400020. Cottage Shivaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aadck8198B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2018

…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). Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of such bogus purchases of Rs.4,57,20,006/-. M/s KBA Infrastructure 6 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open cou…

ITO 10(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and upheld the

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd. 10(1)(3), Plot No.1-4, Loyalka Lane, बनाम/ Room No.25B, Ground Opp. Aziz Compound, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabc17006E

…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.” 2.2. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- 7 M/s IVT Valves Pvt. Ltd. “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…

Shri Jayesh Bhogilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…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…

Shreekishan Joshi, Mumbai vs. JCIT 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Shreekishan Joshi Dcit 30(2) C-13/5Th 922/923, 9Th Floor Floor Bandra Kurla Vs. Corporate Avenue Complex Mumbai- Sonawala Road, Goregaon 400051. (E) Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aabpj7710M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Aarju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2018

…the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to 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 Shreekrishan Joshi 4 So considering the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchase of Rs.20,26,444/-. Thus the 1st ground of appeal is partly allowed. 7. The 2n…

ITO WD 2(5), Kalyan vs. Hasmukharai & Co., Ambernath

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…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…