Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT

15 ITD 428Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1990#14947 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatormere change of opinionspecified authoritysection 292bsection 148a(b)section 292change of opinionsection 149section 148asection 29tangible materialservice of notice

Judgments citing Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…fact of issuing only accommodation bills. The Ld. Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of the proof and accordingly, he relying on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428, held 12.5% of such purchases as unexplained in terms of section 69C of the Act, which was worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/-. In this manner in the assessment order passed, the Assessing Officer made two additions, firstly, addition of Rs.10,55,84,257/- for unexplained credit/deposit in Banks and secondly, addition of Rs.2,15,36,916/- for bogus purch…

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Bkc vs. Rajnish Bharti HUF, Darukhana

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

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. C.V. JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…fact of issuing only accommodation bills. The Ld. Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of the proof and accordingly, he relying on the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428, held 12.5% of such purchases as unexplained in terms of section 69C of the Act, which was worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/-. In this manner in the assessment order passed, the Assessing Officer made two additions, firstly, addition of Rs.10,55,84,257/- for unexplained credit/deposit in Banks and secondly, addition of Rs.2,15,36,916/- for bogus purch…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ts burden of the proof and accordingly assessee failed to discharge its burden of the proof and accordingly he relying on the decision of the the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Proteins Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428 Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428, held 12.5% of such purchases as unexplain unexplained in terms of section 69C of the Act ed in terms of section 69C of the Act, which was worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/ worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/-. In this manner in the . In this manner in the assessment order passed, the Assessing Officer made two additions, assessment o…

Rajnish Bharti HUF, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ts burden of the proof and accordingly assessee failed to discharge its burden of the proof and accordingly he relying on the decision of the the decision of the Ahmadabad Bench of Ahmadabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Proteins Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428 Ltd. (1990) 15 ITD 428, held 12.5% of such purchases as unexplain unexplained in terms of section 69C of the Act ed in terms of section 69C of the Act, which was worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/ worked out to Rs.2,15,36,960/-. In this manner in the . In this manner in the assessment order passed, the Assessing Officer made two additions, assessment o…

ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Khusaldas Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 3019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…en the ITA 3019/Mum/2014 20 concerned sales and purchase transactions) or which is normally declared in this business at 1 to 2% according to the assessee. Following the ratio of the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (15 ITD 428), the CIT(Appeals) estimated the commission earned by the assessee at 5% of the said purchase of Rs.3,82,69,759/- in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) -31, Mumbai dated 17/8/2012 for assessment year 2007-08, both Revenue and the assessee have preferred appeals before the Tribuna…

Reliance Cables and Conductors P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3311/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3311/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Reliance Cables & Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Conductors Pvt. Ltd., 4(3)(2), V. 12, Shanti Villa Chs, Aayakar Bhavan, 3 Rd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 45 Telle Park Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacr 2900D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 40A

…as the difference between the concerned sales and purchase transactions) or which is normally declared in this business at 1 to 2% according to the assessee. Following the ratio of the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (15 ITD 428), the CIT(Appeals) estimated the commission earned by the assessee at 5% of the said purchase of Rs.3,82,69,759/- in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) -31, Mumbai dated 17/8/2012 for assessment year 2007-08, both Revenue and the assessee have preferred appeals before the Tribuna…

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT (15 ITD 428) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax