Oilcake Industries v CIT ( 2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.)(HC) Referred N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy CIT

8 ITR-OL 336High Court2017#25796 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 68 Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)/147 Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

appeal before the tribunal person section 143(3)india nfac business

Judgments citing Oilcake Industries v CIT ( 2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.)(HC) Referred N.K. Industries Ltd. v. Dy CIT

FINESSE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1249/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ategorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2, 92, 93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs. 73, 23,322/-. 7. The principles laid down in N. K. Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 8 ITR-OL 336: 2016 SCC Online Guj. 10209 : (2017) 292 CTR 354 have been upheld by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court has on the issue of bogus purchases in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur. Vs. M/s. Aditya Gems, Jaipur (Income Tax Appeal No .234/2008) wherein the following was held-: “3. Considering the law declared by the Supreme Cou…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI AYAKAR BHAWAN CHURCHGATE vs. VARSHA CORPORATION LIMITED, MALAD (WEST)

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 348/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalito, R. No. 227, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Maharashtra - 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S. Varsha Corporation Ltd. 13, Adarsh Society, Varsha Ramachandra Lane Extn. Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064. Pan No.Aabcv2293E ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajora, Ld.AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…rectors, i.e. M/s. Shashwat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. was not a genuine entity which was engaged in bona fide business activity. To adjudicate such a scenario reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court inN. K. Industries Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 8 ITR-OL 336: 2016 SCC Online Guj.10209: (2017) 292 CTR 354 wherein the following was held-: 6. The Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25 per cent of the total purchases. The…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SURAJ EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1277/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-19(3) बिधम/ Suraj Exports Matru Mandir, Room De-8011/12/13 Bharat Vs. No.206, Grant Road, Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400007. Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Entire Addition Made By Ao (Purchases To The Tune Of Rs.3,79,50,581/-) & Restricting It To 8% N.P Of Such Purchases. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.53,24,567/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Search & Survey Action Conducted In This Case Of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain & Family On 03.10.2013, The Investigation Wing Came To Know That Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Controlled Many Companies/Firm/ Proprietory

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)

…ribunal had accepted it. Whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be an issue of law. (Followed Sanjay Oilcake Industries v CIT ( 2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.)(HC) Referred N.K. Industries Ltd. v Dy CIT ( 2017) 292 CTR 354/ 8 ITR-OL 336 (Guj.)(HC), Vijay Proteins Ltd v. CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Guj.) (HC) (AY. 2011-12).” 7 A.Y. 2007-08 Suraj Exports 6. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court according to us, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is a plausible view which need not be interfered with. Therefore, we confirm the action of the Ld. CIT…