Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries

294 ITR 610High Court2007#3179 most cited

What is Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries authority for?

The peak credit theory is applicable only when the source and corresponding outgo of a deposit are unexplained, and it does not apply to issues concerning purchases.

37

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries · 294 ITR 610 · peak credit theory · unexplained deposits · unexplained outgo · cash credits · section 68 · section 69 · section 69A · business income

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69Section 144Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 256(2)section 106section 256section 124(3)(a)section 113section 124(3)income tax settlement commissionsection 124section 131(1a)creditworthiness of the creditorsurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing Point E COT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7897/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7896/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6897/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6896/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6894/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6893/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…nt D certain parameters have been given, however is not explained in what regard. The cash credits for peak, to no extent are a matter before us and thus the parameters found no grounding as per our analysis. 5. Point E COT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, 294 ITR 610 (2007): The said judgment as relied by the Department do not relate to the issue under consideration. It is infact in relation to cash deposits and the usage of peak Credit theory which has nothing common with that of the assessee’s circumstances. Further the theory to prove that the credits that emanated from a creditor have been returned to the…

Sri. Venkataramanappa Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2660/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 37(1)Section 40

…n this regard, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari (2005)(276 ITR Sri Venkataramanappa Ravi Kumar, Bengaluru Page 5 of 8 38), Vijay Agricultural Industries (2007) (294 ITR 610)(All). The Ld D.R also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.K.Garg (2018)(404 ITR 757). The Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has failed to prove the sources of deposits and also the purpose of withdrawals. Further, he has failed to show that the money so withdrawn was re- deposited. A…

Mohd. Murtuza Siddiqui, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Allahabad

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

ITA 155/ALLD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 80C

…return of income is filed based on the provisions of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. He has relied upon the following decisions of (i) Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari vs. CIT 276 ITR 38 (Allahabad) (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) (iii) I.T.A.T. Kolkata Bench decision dated 19.12.2013 in the case of Mrityunjay Kr. Sharma vs. DCIT, I.T.A. No. 1363-1364 of 2012. 9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has explained the source of deposit as the contract receipt. In support of claim the assessee has referr…

Amit Arora, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3482/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Salil kapoor, Adv. and Shri Samarth Choudhari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234ASection 69

…FIT FOR PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3482/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Amit Arora, ACIT, 201, Vipps Centre,-2- Vs Central Circle-22, Community Center, Masjid New Delhi. Moth, G.K. II, New Delhi. PAN No: ACAPA9659D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) Assessee By : Shri Salil kapoor, Adv. and Shri Samarth Choudhari, Adv. Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned…

Sh. Omprakash Garg, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5576/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Om Prakash Garg Dy. Commissioner Of Income 85, Bharat Nagar, Vs Tax, Central Circle -11, Ara New Friends Colony, Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aenpg2904C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132

…CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 317 (Punjab & Haryana )/[2017] 248 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana ) 7 4. Krishan Kumar Sethi Vs. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi) 5. CIT Vs. DK Garg [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi) 6. CIT Vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) 7. Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari Vs. CIT [2005] 276 ITR 38 (Allahabad) /[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad) 15. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,87,700/-…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Rajender Sharma, New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito, Vs Rajender Sharma, Ward-46(4), 1898, Gali Lehshwa, New Delhi. Kucha Pati Ram, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(4)Section 68

…her interference is called for especially when the assessee has not challenged for the setting off of the credit from the estimated profit so directed by the CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries, (2007) 294 ITR 610 (All); ii) ITO vs. Rakesh Mehra 2012 (9) TMI 330 (Delhi ITAT); iii) ITO vs. Jailly Goraya, 2017 (7) TMI 912 (Delhi ITAT); iv) ACIT vs. Rajneesh Nagar, 2017 (1) TMI 1250 (ITAT Delhi); and v) Sejal Jayesh Vora vs. ITO, 2017 99) TMI 308 (ITAT Mumbai). 4 9. So far as the decision relied on by ld. DR is concerned, he submitted that the same is distin…

Mithalal Vagataji Mali, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3786/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 68

…only when the assessee is able to explain the sources of deposits and corresponding payments. We notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rendered its decision by following the decisions rendered in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Agricultural Industries (2007)(294 ITR 610) and Bhaiyalal Shyam Bihari vs. CIT (2005)(276 ITR 38). On the contrary, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Purushottam Jhawar (supra) and also another decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Fertilizer Traders (supra) to support his claim for applying peak credi…

Shaji Purushothaman, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 841/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 69

…is not acceptable.” 5.1 Relying the cases of Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari v CIT(A) (2005) 276 ITR 38 (All.), ITO vs Murlidharan G Pillai, the Hon’ble ITAT Bench A, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 225/Ahd/2010 CO No. 258/Ahd/2010&CIT vs Vijay Agricultural Industries (2007) 294 ITR 610 (All.) , the CIT(A) refused to consider the assessee’s alternate plea of making the addition on Peak credit method. :-9-: 6. Before us also, the assessee contended the same pleas taken before the lower authorities. Per contra, the DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. We have considered them. On the above facts, it is clear that th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. D.K.Garg

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs

ITA/115/2005HC Delhi04 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 148Section 260A

…sit is not explained and the corresponding outgo is also unexplained, the question of giving the Assessee the benefit of peak credit would not arise. He placed reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vijay Agricultural Industries (2007) 294 ITR 610 which in turn followed its earlier decision in Bhaiyalal Shyam Bihari v. CIT (2005) 276 ITR 38 (All). Submissions of learned counsel for the Assessee 12. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, on the other hand submitted that the issue in the present appeal under Section 260 A of the Act is confined only to working out of the peak cr…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

ITTA/165/2010HC Telangana20 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Ritesh Hasmukhlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7360/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7360/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ritesh Hasmukhlal Jain Ito, Ward 14(1)(4), बनाम/ 93/115, 2Nd Floor, Raut Estate, 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, Koliwada, Fanaswadi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8427 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. N. Vaishnav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav

For Appellant: Shri M. N. VaishnavFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 44ASection 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7360/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ritesh Hasmukhlal Jain ITO, Ward 14(1)(4), बनाम/ 93/115, 2nd Floor, Raut Estate, 2nd Floor, Earnest House, Koliwada, Fanaswadi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ADDPJ 8427 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M. N. Vaishnav ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vish…