Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

316 ITR 274High Court2009#154 most cited

What is Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT authority for?

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

460

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sanjay Oilcake Industries · 316 ITR 274 · bogus purchases · unverifiable purchases · proportionate disallowance · profit element · section 68 · section 69B · section 131 · section 133A · estimation of income

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 68Section 131Section 133ASection 115BBESection 153CSection 69BSection 143(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 69bsection 292csection 292section 44absection 201section 69csection 133asection 29escapement of incomesection 145(3)section 131commissioner (appeals)

Judgments citing Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Baroda vs. M/S. Ultra Tech Transmission, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 395/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 393, 394, 395, 396 & 1661 /Ahd/2019 Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Ultratech of Income Tax, Transmission Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-3, Vs GF-1, Radhakrishna Flat, 603, 6th Floor, Plot No. -7, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Niketan, SOC Race Course Circle, Nr. ESI Hospital, Vadodara-390007 Opp. Haveli Productivity (Appellant) Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara PAN: AABCU3751A (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Reven…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Baroda vs. M/S. Ultra Tech Transmission, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 394/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 393, 394, 395, 396 & 1661 /Ahd/2019 Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Ultratech of Income Tax, Transmission Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-3, Vs GF-1, Radhakrishna Flat, 603, 6th Floor, Plot No. -7, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Niketan, SOC Race Course Circle, Nr. ESI Hospital, Vadodara-390007 Opp. Haveli Productivity (Appellant) Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara PAN: AABCU3751A (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Reven…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Baroda vs. Ultra Tech Transmission, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 393/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 393, 394, 395, 396 & 1661 /Ahd/2019 Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Ultratech of Income Tax, Transmission Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-3, Vs GF-1, Radhakrishna Flat, 603, 6th Floor, Plot No. -7, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Niketan, SOC Race Course Circle, Nr. ESI Hospital, Vadodara-390007 Opp. Haveli Productivity (Appellant) Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara PAN: AABCU3751A (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Reven…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Baroda vs. M/S. Ultratech Transmission Pvt. Ltd, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 1661/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 393, 394, 395, 396 & 1661 /Ahd/2019 Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner M/s. Ultratech of Income Tax, Transmission Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-3, Vs GF-1, Radhakrishna Flat, 603, 6th Floor, Plot No. -7, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Niketan, SOC Race Course Circle, Nr. ESI Hospital, Vadodara-390007 Opp. Haveli Productivity (Appellant) Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara PAN: AABCU3751A (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. Reven…

M/S. Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ground numbers 5 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 69C

…fits during year from sales which would not be possible without utilising huge raw material, Tribunal was wholly justified in restricting impugned additions on account of bogus purchased to 25 per cent. However. in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where certain additions were made on account of inflated purchase price and alleged sellers were not traceable and though payments had been made by account-payee cheques, entire amounts so deposited had been withdrawn by bearer cheques, Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition. In the case of I.T.A…

Dy. CIT CC -7(40), Mumbai vs. Shree Ambica Gems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1769/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Biren ShahFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel
Section 133ASection 69A

…for addition. 9.3.13 The issue has previously been considered by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Vijay proteins Ltd. Vs ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd) This issue has subsequently came under consideration in CIT v. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj)(HC). where in AO had information that these parties are hawala entry givers and entire purchases were added Tribunal restricted the addition to 25% of purchases as profit of the assessee. Both the assessee and Revenue filed an appeal before the Court, but the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the view of Tribunal. 9.3.14 It is a known fact that i…

Prakash Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh-ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 524/MUM/2022[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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." (emphasis supplied) 4.3.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements cited above, what can be disallowed…

ACIT, Central Circle1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5632/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Rai. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…nished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax This was the view of this Court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT, 316 ITR 274 (Guj.). Such decision is also followed by this Court in a judgment dated 16.8.2011 in Tax Appeal No.679 of 2010 in the case of CIT v. Kishor Amrutlal Patel. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed." 19.18 Further, in the case of CIT v Simit P. Sheth, 355 ITR 290 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that in the case of bogus purchases,…

M/S. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 1782/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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.” 15.15 Following the ratio of these decisions, it cannot be said that purchases ranging from 30% to 90% are disallowable. Considering the fact…

M/S. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 1781/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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.” 15.15 Following the ratio of these decisions, it cannot be said that purchases ranging from 30% to 90% are disallowable. Considering the fact…

M/S. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 1780/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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.” 15.15 Following the ratio of these decisions, it cannot be said that purchases ranging from 30% to 90% are disallowable. Considering the fact…

M/S. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 1779/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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.” 15.15 Following the ratio of these decisions, it cannot be said that purchases ranging from 30% to 90% are disallowable. Considering the fact…

M/S. Size Control Gauges and Tools Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

ITA 1778/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj). Such decision is also followed by this 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.” 15.15 Following the ratio of these decisions, it cannot be said that purchases ranging from 30% to 90% are disallowable. Considering the fact…

DCIT Circle- 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sanjivaini Parenteral Ltd., M

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4154/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, mere mentioning of section 68 did not affect the addition made when transaction were found bogus. 4.13 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: "Thus, it is apparent that both the commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing officer that the apparent ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. Those goods were rec…

DCIT, Circle-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S- Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, mere mentioning of section 68 did not affect the addition made when transaction were found bogus. 4.13 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: "Thus, it is apparent that both the commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing officer that the apparent ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. Those goods were rec…

DCIT, C-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the learned assessing officer are partly allowed

ITA 4152/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, mere mentioning of section 68 did not affect the addition made when transaction were found bogus. 4.13 In Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj), it was held as under: "Thus, it is apparent that both the commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concurrently accepted the finding of the Assessing officer that the apparent ITA Nos. 415 to 4154/M/19 & CO nos.57 to 59/M/20 Sanjivani Parenteral Ltd; A.Y. 10–11 sellers who had issued sale bills were not traceable. Those goods were rec…

M/S Goodwil Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has applied flat rate of N.P based on past history and profit disclosed in comparable case operatin…

Goodwill Traders, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 327/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has applied flat rate of N.P based on past history and profit disclosed in comparable case operatin…

Goodwill Traders., Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Srinagar

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 326/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR &
Section 145(3)

…is question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Stonemann Marble Industries, 2 SCC 758, Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT, 1 SCC 673; New Plaza Restaurant v. ITO 309 ITR 259 (HP); and Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj.).” Similar view was reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in plethora of cases to name a few CIT Vs Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. 177 ITR 86 (All.) ; CIT Vs Surjit Singh 210 ITR 83 (All.) in which case the order of the Tribunal was upheld where it has applied flat rate of N.P based on past history and profit disclosed in comparable case operatin…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 1115/Ahd/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh Vs. ITO House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Ward-1(2)(3), Kagdiwa…