Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

58 ITD 428Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#165 most cited

What is Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT authority for?

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

430

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Proteins Ltd v ACIT · 58 ITD 428 · bogus purchases · unexplained expenditure · Section 69C · 25% disallowance · peak credit · grey market transactions · fictitious purchases · Section 147

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

Girish Narapatchand Kanungo, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1587/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1587/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Mr. Girish Narapatchand Ito 19(1)(3) Kanungo Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Tirupati Impex, Mumbai V. Flat No. 3, 2 Nd Floor, 5 Ramniwas Bldg, 2Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp. V.P Road Police Station, Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aoapk9201M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1587/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 22.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1587/Mum/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…such estimation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'bie Court also relied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 1TR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428. 5.10 In the present case, AO concluded that the assessee indulged in non-genuine transaction and intention of indulging in such activity is to suppress the true profits and to reduce the tax liability. Therefore, in such circumstances, addition on account of a higher margin of profit would be fair and equitable which is supported by the above dec…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…but the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subjected to tax. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the case of Sanket Steel Traders and also made reference to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). 6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the 47 & 2698/M…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Yogesh Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 4038/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Acit-19(3), M/S Yogesh Construction, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 1/11, 1St Floor, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, 25- Harharwala Building, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 164/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yogesh Construction, The Acit-19(3), 1/11, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 25- Harharwala Building, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aaafy6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rahul Hakani (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2018

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The ACIT-19(3), M/s Yogesh Construction, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor, 1/11, 1st Floor, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, 25- Harharwala Building, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AAAFY6766D (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 164/MUM/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Yogesh Construction, The ACIT-19(3), 1/11, 1st Floor, Matru Mandir, 2nd Floor, 25- Harharwala Building, R. No. 206, Tardeo Road, S.V.P. Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AAAFY6766D (Appell…