CIT v. Vikram Plastics

239 ITR 161High Court1999#3087 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 366,314 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

M/S. 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 6114/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 2002/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…

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 1731/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…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2451/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ects in its books of accounts. Therefore the AO was under the obligation to accept the results shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee in support of his contention referred the following orders: (a) CIT v Vikram Plastics & ORS reported in 239 ITR 161 (b) S. VeeriahReddiar v CIT,(1960) 38 ITR 152, 170 (ker) (c) CIT v Mcmillan& Co (1958) 33 ITR 182 SC (d) CIT v Sarangpur Cotton Mfg . Co. Ltd. (1938) 6 ITR 36 (PC) 14. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee referred to the informations about the 4 companies on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO on ac…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Granito India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1517/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Talsania, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T.DR
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…ects in its books of accounts. Therefore the AO was under the obligation to accept the results shown by the assessee in its books of accounts. The assessee in support of his contention referred the following orders: (a) CIT v Vikram Plastics & ORS reported in 239 ITR 161 (b) S. VeeriahReddiar v CIT,(1960) 38 ITR 152, 170 (ker) (c) CIT v Mcmillan& Co (1958) 33 ITR 182 SC (d) CIT v Sarangpur Cotton Mfg . Co. Ltd. (1938) 6 ITR 36 (PC) 14. The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee referred to the informations about the 4 companies on the basis of which the addition was made by the AO on ac…

Komal Tex Fab Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 140 & 141/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year: 2009-2010 & 2010-11 With Cross Objection No.148/Ahd/2013 In Asstt.Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Survey No.167/1687 Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 572/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Survey No.167/1687 Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 268A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ IT(SS)A No. 140 and 141/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year: 2009-2010 and 2010-11 WITH Cross Objection No.148/Ahd/2013 IN Asstt.Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(4) Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Survey No.167/1687 Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AAACK 6150 C आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 572/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(4)…

M/S. Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2438/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, M/s Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Wd 2(1)(4), Room No. 219, Dumas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Distt. Surat. vs Majura Gate, Surat. (PAN: AAACV3889R) Appellant Respondent C.O. NO. 181/AHD/2015 (IN ITA No. 2419/AHD/2015) Assessment year: 2011-12 M/s Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Income Tax Officer, Dumas Road, Wd 2(1)(4), Room No. 219, Distt. Surat. Aayakar Bhavan, vs (PAN: AAACV3889R) Majura Gat…

The ITO, Ward-4(4), Surat vs. M/S. Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, M/s Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Wd 2(1)(4), Room No. 219, Dumas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Distt. Surat. vs Majura Gate, Surat. (PAN: AAACV3889R) Appellant Respondent C.O. NO. 181/AHD/2015 (IN ITA No. 2419/AHD/2015) Assessment year: 2011-12 M/s Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Income Tax Officer, Dumas Road, Wd 2(1)(4), Room No. 219, Distt. Surat. Aayakar Bhavan, vs (PAN: AAACV3889R) Majura Gat…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case- laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reasons for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case- laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reasons for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…

The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Junagadh vs. M/S Parishram Builders, Veraval

In the result, revenue’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 687/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 367/Rjt/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Acit, M/S. Parishram Builders, Circle-1, Vs Kunal Complex, Teachers Junagadh Colony, Junagadh Road, Veraval-362 266 Pan : Aacfp 5403 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 687/Rjt/2014 & Co No.11/Rjt/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 The Acit, M/S. Parishram Builders, Circle-1, Vs Kunal Complex, Teachers Junagadh Colony, Junagadh Road, Veraval-362 266 Pan : Aacfp 5403 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) & Cross-Objector Revenue By : Usha N Shrote, Sr Dr Assessee By : M J Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2016 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Usha N Shrote, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…nd in page no.7 of the CIT(A)’s order that the assessee’s net profit rate is @ 2.82% as against 1.43% and 2.0% in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09; respectively. We wish to quote Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic & Ors, 239 ITR 161, that section 145 is not to be invoked for rejecting an assessee’s books in absence of any material brought on record to establish that relevant purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed or that the tax payer concerned had not followed the regular method of accounting. It has further come on record that the CIT(A) has still upheld t…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Junagadh vs. M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval

In the result, revenue’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 367/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 367/Rjt/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Acit, M/S. Parishram Builders, Circle-1, Vs Kunal Complex, Teachers Junagadh Colony, Junagadh Road, Veraval-362 266 Pan : Aacfp 5403 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 687/Rjt/2014 & Co No.11/Rjt/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-2011 The Acit, M/S. Parishram Builders, Circle-1, Vs Kunal Complex, Teachers Junagadh Colony, Junagadh Road, Veraval-362 266 Pan : Aacfp 5403 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) & Cross-Objector Revenue By : Usha N Shrote, Sr Dr Assessee By : M J Ranpura, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2016 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Usha N Shrote, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…nd in page no.7 of the CIT(A)’s order that the assessee’s net profit rate is @ 2.82% as against 1.43% and 2.0% in assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09; respectively. We wish to quote Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic & Ors, 239 ITR 161, that section 145 is not to be invoked for rejecting an assessee’s books in absence of any material brought on record to establish that relevant purchases or expenses were inflated or sales suppressed or that the tax payer concerned had not followed the regular method of accounting. It has further come on record that the CIT(A) has still upheld t…

The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Swastik Developers, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1725/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1725/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/A.Y. 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Swastik Developers, Ward-5(2)(4), 1/31, Eeshita Tower, Nr. Ahmedabad Samved Hospital, Commerce College Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-38009 Pan : Abofs 2217 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr By Assessee : Shri S. N. Divatia, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per S.S. Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Cit(A), Ahmedabad-5’S Order Dated 11.03.2015 In Case No. Cit(A)- 5/Wd.991)/135/2014-15 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Finding In Both Rejecting Assessee’S Books Under Section 145(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) As Well As Restricting The Addition To Rs.2,67,767/- From Rs.58,32,000/- Estimated By The Assessing Officer At 25% Of Net Profits On Relevant Project.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR
Section 145(3)

…mes right from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards hereinabove. His case therefore is that the assessee’s books of accounts have been correctly maintained throughout. He then quotes Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgment in CIT vs. Vikram Plastic & Ors, 239 ITR 161, upholding the tribunal’s order that an Assessing Officer’s action invoking section 145 of the Act is not sustainable in case there are no discrepancies or defects pointed out in an assessee’s books of accounts regularly maintained not indicating any inflated purchases or suppressed sales or any deviation from the regular method of accounting fol…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 145(3)

…s no finding that merely on account of the absence of stock register, the books of accounts can be rejected. 2.10 The assessee has also relied on the decisions rendered in the cases of Smt Poonam Rani (326 ITR 223); M. Durag Raj (83 ITR 484); Vikram Plastics (239 ITR 161), Ludhiana Steel Roll Mills (295 ITR 111) and Madani Construction (296 ITR 45). 2.11 In view of the totality of the above discussion, the rejection of the book of accounts and the consequent estimation of profit cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted. 2.12 Subject to the above remarks, Ground Nos. 1 to 17 are treated as allowed. 3.1 Gr…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. , (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case-laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reason for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. , (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case-laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reason for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 2561/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. , (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case-laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reason for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3967/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…aras Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. , (2010) 4 ITR (Trib.) (Ahd.) after reviewing the entire case-laws, held that the low profit cannot be the reason for rejection of the book results. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vikram Plastic, 239 ITR 161 held that no specific discrepancies or defects in the books of account of the assessee has been pointed out, nor any material was brought to establish that the purchases and expenses had been inflated or the sales had been suppressed and in the absence of any such material or finding given, there was no justification in invoking the provisions of…