CIT v. Vikram Plastics

239 ITR 161High Court1999#3130 most cited

What is CIT v. Vikram Plastics authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot treat sales as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 solely on suspicion, especially when debtors are realized and sales are duly accounted for.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vikram Plastics · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · sale proceeds · realization of debtors · genuine sales · suspicion

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of accountsection 145(3)section 145mercantile system of accountingsundry creditorssection 44absection 115bbsection 115bsection 44section 115bbeaccommodation entryunexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikram Plastics

DEEPSONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandradeepsons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 31St Floor, Community Income Tax, Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Circle 7(1), Area, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacd3267B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 115BSection 68

…made the addition accordingly, relied on following judicial precedents: i).CIT VsPashupatiNath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) ITA No. 165 of 2010 dated 04.05.2017. ii) Sargam Cinema vs CIT 328 ITR 513(SC). iii) Vikram Plastics & Others [239 ITR 161] (Guj). iv) CIT VsRajni Kant Dave 281 ITR 6 (All);. v) VatikaLandbasePvt Ltd 383 IT 320 dated 26.02.2016 (Del);. vi) PCIT vs R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd (2018) 259 Taxman 371 (Del) approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) 259 Taxman 370 (SC); vii)Yunus Haji Ibrahim Fazalwalavs ITO 2016 (2) TMI 1204 (Guj). viii) Pr CIT vs Forum Sales P Ltd 466 IT…

DEEPAVALI BALU MAHENDRA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1715/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1715/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Deepavali Balu The Dcit, Vs. Mahendra, Hyderabad. Central Circle-2(4), Pin – 500 096 Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Adspd2577N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca, C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: CA, C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ome of the assessee, in our considered view, the explanation offered by the assessee ought to have accepted by the Assessing Officer. This legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikram Plastics [1999] 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been clearly held that, when there was no discrepancy or defects in books of account maintained by assessee and further, the books of account maintained by assessee were not found to be incorrect or incomplete and that no material was brought on record by the Revenue to prove that purchases and expenses had been inflated or…

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

ITA 342/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…hout regard to the available material. CIT vs. Om Overseas (2008) 173 Taxman 185 (P&H) it was held that the AO can’t reject the book of accounts provided by the assessee without specifying proper adequate and sufficient reasons. CIT vs. Vikram Plastics (1999) 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) it was found there was no discrepancy or defects in books of account maintained by assessee and further, the books of account maintained by assessee were not found to be incorrect or incomplete and that no material was brought on record by the revenue to prove that purchases and expenses had been inflated or sales had been suppressed. PCIT…

ROLEX CERAMIC,MORBI vs. DCIT, MORBI CIRCLE, MORBI, MORBI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 471/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

…unt were duly audited under section 44AB of the Act and nothing were reported which established that books of account are not reliable, for that we rely on the judgement of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT vs. Vikram Plastic & Ors 239 ITR 161, 163, where in it was held as follows: "In view of the finding reached by the Tribunal that there were no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchase expenses were inflated or sales supp…

UNISEVEN ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2652/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…by treating the sale as not genuine. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT Vs. Om Overseas [2008] 173 Taxman 185 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics [1999] 239 ITR 161. We also note that the sales made by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the debtors are realized and the case is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Sukamal Maity in ITA No. 976/Kol/2023 dated 09.05.2024. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of coordinate bench in t…

UNISEVEN ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2651/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…by treating the sale as not genuine. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of CIT Vs. Om Overseas [2008] 173 Taxman 185 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics [1999] 239 ITR 161. We also note that the sales made by the assessee cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the debtors are realized and the case is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Sukamal Maity in ITA No. 976/Kol/2023 dated 09.05.2024. The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of coordinate bench in t…

KSHETRAPAL GOLD PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kshetrapal Gold Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sf-1, Kush Avenue, Mandvi Ni Ward 2(1)(2), Pole, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380001 Pan : Aafck 6724 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Rejection Of Books Of Accounts In Contravention To The Provisions Of Act. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. U/S 68 Of The Act Even After Rejection Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…d patent, latent and glaring defects in the books of accounts while rejecting the Books of the assessee. The reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics [1999] 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) clearly holds that for the purpose of rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, discrepancies and defects in the same need to be pointed out. 14. In the facts of the present case, admittedly no defects or discrepancies have been pointed out. The rejection of books of accounts is merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures of th…

SHIVAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive In Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/04/2024 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive in Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCS0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by :…

VISHAL BUILDERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 263/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.263/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vishal Builders 7/619, Gawri Bhawan, Fafadih Naka, Raipur-492001(C.G.) Pan : Aaefv1401G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Raipur, C.G.

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…without pointing out any specific defect could not be sustained and had rightly been vacated by both the lower appellate authorities. Also a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics & Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 161 (Guj). In its said order the Hon’ble High Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal which had set-aside the rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee for two fold reasons, viz. (i) that the AO had not pointed out any specific discrepancies or defects in the books of accounts of the assessee which were regularly being maintained; and (ii…

DCIT 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S MAA UMIYA AGRITECH PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit 1(1) M/S. Maa Umiya Agritech Pvt. Ltd. Indore 119, A.B. Road, Aloo Pyaj Mandi, Vs. Indore (Appellant / (Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcn8230F Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Date Of Hearing 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 144Section 145

…by the Tribunal. During the course of arguments, learned counsel was unable to point out any illegality or perverse in the said finding of fact. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. (xii) In the case of CIT vs. Vikram Plastics reported in 239 ITR 161 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that "it was found there was no discrepancy or defects in books of account maintained by assessee and further the books of account maintained by assessee were not found to be incorrect or incomplete and that no material was brought on record by the revenue to prove that purchases and expenses had been inflated or s…

THAKORDAS PAREKH & SONS,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NAVSARI

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…sing Officer. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Amitbhai Gunvantbhai [1981] 129 ITR 573 (Guj), 10 Thakordas Parekh & Sons  R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT 75 ITR 33,  CIT vs. Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj)  St.Teresa’s Oil Mill vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 8. On the addition of Rs.18,07,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer wrongly rejected the books of account of assessee and no addition can be made as increased sales was on account of Diwali festival and booming sal…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SANJAY AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

ITA 82/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2018 Co No.05/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sanjay Agrawal 35-36, Millenium Plaza, G. E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aapfs0532E ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

…without pointing out any specific defect could not be sustained and had rightly been vacated by both the lower appellate authorities. Also a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics & Ors. (1999) 239 ITR 161 (Guj). In its said order the Hon’ble High Court had upheld the order of the Tribunal which had set-aside the rejection of the books of accounts of the assessee for two fold reasons, viz. (i) that the AO had not pointed out any specific discrepancies or defects in the books of accounts of the assessee which were regularly being maintained; and (ii…

THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. AMIT COTTON INDUSTRIES,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 431/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidyasagar S. Ubale, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…nd on that basis the audited books of accounts has been wrongly rejected by the Ld. AO. He, therefore, relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). He has further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Vikram Plastics, reported in (1999) 239 ITR 161, passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. A copy whereof has also been submitted before us while dealing with the identical issue the Hon’ble was pleased to observe as follows: "When no specific discrepancies or defects in the book of accounts of the assessee has been pointed out nor was any material brought to establish that purchases were infl…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)(1), SURAT vs. M/S. LEMON TECHNOMIST PVT. LTD., SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deven Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 9

…doubt the genuineness of books of accounts merely because there has been reduction in Gross Profit Ratio in comparison to earlier years. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastics & Others (239 ITR 161) (Guj.), wherein it was held that if there was no discrepancy or defect pointed out in the books of accounts and if there is no material brought on record that purchases and expenses were inflated or sales suppressed then books of accounts cannot be rejected. The Ld. CIT(A) has also discussed that the product - service mix in A.Y.2012-13 was 42:5…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…that they are incorrect or unreliable. If there was no challenge to the transactions represented in the books, then it is not open to the Department to contend that what was shown by the entries is not the real state of affairs. CIT v. Vikrarn Plastics [1999] 239 ITR 161(Guj). Thus section 45(1) cast an obligation on the AO to compute income in accordance with books of accounts maintained during the course of business. CIT v A. Krishna Swamy 53 ITR 122 (SC), CIT v Mcmelan & Co. 33 ITR 182. Suspicion, however strong it may be, is no ground for the AO for invoking the provisions of ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 & 19 CO No…

EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 914/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…ee which is not without any tangible basis and hence cannot be accepted. The AO’s contention that the negligible profit declared by the assessee warrants the alteration in POCM is also cannot be accepted. We also rely on the judgment of CIT Vs Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, where no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed. The profits declared by the assessee cannot be a…

EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 913/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…ee which is not without any tangible basis and hence cannot be accepted. The AO’s contention that the negligible profit declared by the assessee warrants the alteration in POCM is also cannot be accepted. We also rely on the judgment of CIT Vs Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, where no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed. The profits declared by the assessee cannot be a…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5827/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…ee which is not without any tangible basis and hence cannot be accepted. The AO’s contention that the negligible profit declared by the assessee warrants the alteration in POCM is also cannot be accepted. We also rely on the judgment of CIT Vs Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, where no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed. The profits declared by the assessee cannot be a…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2001/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…ee which is not without any tangible basis and hence cannot be accepted. The AO’s contention that the negligible profit declared by the assessee warrants the alteration in POCM is also cannot be accepted. We also rely on the judgment of CIT Vs Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, where no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed. The profits declared by the assessee cannot be a…

M/S. EMAAR MGF CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1732/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1731/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 1732/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6114/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-7, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 2001/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 2002/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5827/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-7, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 913/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 914/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, Tax, Central Circle-2, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K Ita No. 1253/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs Emmar Mgf Construction Pvt. Tax, Central Circle-2, Ltd., First Floor, Ece House, 28, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce7912K

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR

…ee which is not without any tangible basis and hence cannot be accepted. The AO’s contention that the negligible profit declared by the assessee warrants the alteration in POCM is also cannot be accepted. We also rely on the judgment of CIT Vs Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that, where no discrepancies or defects pointed out in the books of account and further that they were regularly maintained and also on the finding that there was no material brought on record to establish that purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed. The profits declared by the assessee cannot be a…

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2