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

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 69CSection 145(3)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 133ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 69caccommodation entrysection 69businesssection 13documentcompanysection 148total incomesection 147section 143(3)

Judgments citing Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

M/S. Shandar Interiors Pvt. Ld., Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax : 3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, JCIT
Section 143Section 263

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे पुणे म"म"म"म" पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सु"ी सु"ी सुषमा सु"ी सु"ी सुषमा सुषमा चावला सुषमा चावला चावला, "याियक चावला "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं "ी एवं "ी "ी डी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव राव, लेखा राव लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.908 to 910/…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…nsidered the above submissions, documents, registers furnished by the assessee and, relying on various decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 216 taxmann 171 and the decision Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), held that making entire addition of Rs.3,47,78,546/-is not proper. He also analysed the GP ratios of the assessee over the years and held making addition of GP of the said bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. Relevant lines from Para 7 & 8 of the assessment are extracted here as under : “7 . . . . . . . . . . .…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…nsidered the above submissions, documents, registers furnished by the assessee and, relying on various decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 216 taxmann 171 and the decision Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), held that making entire addition of Rs.3,47,78,546/-is not proper. He also analysed the GP ratios of the assessee over the years and held making addition of GP of the said bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. Relevant lines from Para 7 & 8 of the assessment are extracted here as under : “7 . . . . . . . . . . .…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…nsidered the above submissions, documents, registers furnished by the assessee and, relying on various decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 216 taxmann 171 and the decision Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad Tribunal), held that making entire addition of Rs.3,47,78,546/-is not proper. He also analysed the GP ratios of the assessee over the years and held making addition of GP of the said bogus purchases would meet the ends of justice. Relevant lines from Para 7 & 8 of the assessment are extracted here as under : “7 . . . . . . . . . . .…

Plaexe Con Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Plaexe Con Services Acit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, Wayale Nagar, बनाम/ Manogat, Gajanan Khadak Pada, Kalyan West, Vs. Cooperative Housing Thane-421301 Society, Midc Road Badlapur East, Thane-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecp9267D

…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). 7 M/s Plaexe Con Services Pvt. Ltd. 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…

Ashok K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Asok K. Shah, Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), C-25, Sai Baba Enclave, Mumbai, बनाम/ S.V.Road, Vs. Goregaon West, Mumbai-400062 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Akeps3501N

…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 cloth and s…

Mr.Ajay C. Shah HUF, Prop. M/S.Glass and Hardware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7195/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Ajay C. Shah, Income Tax Officer, C/O- Ajay C. Shah, Huf, Ward-26(1)(1), बनाम/ 60A/11, Sion Mahavir P.K. Bhavan, C-11, Vs. Chs, Scheme Road No.25C, R.No.703, 7Th Floor, Sion (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400062 Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aahha5664F

…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 7 Ajay C. S…

Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Ld

ITA 1556/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Unilex Colours & Dcit-13(1)(1), Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 106-107, Advent Atria, Vs. Chincoli Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu5230F

Section 234B

…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 7 Unilex Co…

Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Bhavna Sunil Joshi, Income Tax Officer B-71, Bldg. No.4, 7Th Floor, Ward-32(1)(3), बनाम/ Rustom Regency, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Dahisar (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400068 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aajpj6892N

…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 cloth and s…

Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Bhiwandi vs. ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Asst. Commissioner Of Vishnu Compound, Vs. Income Tax Circle-1, Assbibi, Kalyan Road, Kalyan. Bhiwandi-421302 Pan No. Aatpb1608A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…the purchases made from the above parties as unsubstantiated and made an addition of Rs.25,74,768/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahd), Sanjay Oil Cakes Industries v. CIT (2008) 316 ITR 274 (Guj), restricted the disallowance to Rs.6,43,642/- (@ 25% of Rs.25,74,568/-). Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir 4 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee vide the grounds of appeal submits that (i) the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO not providing documentary evidence an…

Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5209/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd Ito-6(3)(2), Ion House, 4Th Floor, Dr. E. Room No.503, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Moses Road, Mahalakshmi, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400011 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabci4403P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri R.R.V.Raghavan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr

…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 cloth and s…

M/S.Sagar Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 18th April, 2018

ITA 440/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh
Section 143(3)

…se of raw diamonds made by the assessee of Rs.3,57,68,197/- from the aforesaid three concerns was treated as mere accommodation entries and, following the ratio of the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs ACIT, 58 ITD 428 (ITAT Ahmedabad), the Assessing Officer treated 12.5% of such purchases as profit assessable to tax. Thus, an addition of Rs.44,71,025/- was made to the returned income, which has also been affirmed by the CIT(A). Against such an addition, assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee canvassed…

DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 924/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Shri Jayprakash N Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Lakhani, F-212, Udyog Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Vihar, Near Vithal Wadi, Plaza, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar-421003 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W),- 421301 Pan No. Aakpl5145M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…the facts of the case of the appellant. The disallowance @ 25% out of unverifiable purchases from unverifiable/Hawala dealer had been upheld in the aforesaid case: (1) Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vs. CIT (2003) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (2) Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Abd) (3) M/s Nand Kishore Meghraj Jewellers, Jaipur CO. No. 105/JP/09 arising out of ITA No. 433/JP/2009 by ITAT Jaipur (4) M/s. Trident Jewellers ITAT Jaipur ITA No, 552/JP/2013. In view of the above stated facts, the disallowance @ 25% of Rs.1,88,18,660/- works out to Rs.47,04,665/- plus Rs,6,30,697/- = Rs.53,35,362/- is sustained and the same…

Shivram Bholanath Shukla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

ITA 7420/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sivram B. Shukla, The Ito 26(3)(2), (Proprietor Of Sharp Rubber), Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, 1, Lal Mohammed Compound, C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Andheri (East), Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ammps1931Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J Sheth (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Sheth (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…hat the assessee had purchased the material from the parties other than the parties mentioned in the books of account. The addition was made by the AO by following the decision of the ITAT, Ahmadabad Bench rendered in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. ACIT, 58 ITD 428 ITAT (Ahd). 4. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee in the light of the evidence on record dismissed inter alia this ground of appeal and confirmed the addition of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchases holding the same to be justified in view of the nature of the business of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the impug…

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…in Tax Appeal No. 1090 of 2009 and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 23.10.2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2012. The view taken by the Tribunal in case of Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 58 ITD 428 came to be approved.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Similarly while dealing with an identical issue, in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (Purchase)Ltd. ITA.No.No. 63 of 2012, in the order dated 23/10/2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held as under:- “We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themsel…

M/S. Delux Diamonds, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 1396/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C .M. Garg & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 148Section 234B

…d then purchases could not be doubted. It was submitted that in the case of the assessee payments were made by account payee cheques and no material was brought on record that monies are returned to the assessee and therefore, rate adopted in Vijay Proteins 55 TTJ 76 (Ahd-Trib) ought not to be adopted in this case. The ld. AR further submitted that total sales are tars 4.29 Deluxe Diamond v. ITO Ward 1(3)(1)/I.T.A. No.1396/Ahd/2017/A.Y.07-08 Page 8 of 15 crores including 90% is from exports on which ground profit rate disclosed by the assessee comes to 8.55% which is as per the market rate of similar diamon…

ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Madanlal Kitawat (HUF), Mumbai

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7100/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

…in Tax Appeal No. 1090 of 2009 and in case of Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 23.10.2012 passed in Tax Appeal No. 63 of 2012. The view taken by the Tribunal in case of Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 58 ITD 428 came to be approved.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Similarly while dealing with an identical issue, in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (Purchase)Ltd. ITA.No.No. 63 of 2012, in the order dated 23/10/2012, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held as under:- “We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themsel…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…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 cloth and s…

ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kiritikumar Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4695/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4695/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 18(2)(1) बिधम/ Shri Kiritkumar Shatilal Mehta 304, 3Rd Floor, Earnest Vs. Prop. M/S. Vipinkumar & House, Ncpa Marg, Brothers, 42-44, Vithalwadi, Mumbai Pin:400021 Near Tel. Galli, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai. Pin:400002 Co. No.64/Mum/2017 (Ita. No. 4695/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Kiritkumar Shatilal बिधम/ Ito 18(2)(1) Mehta 304, 3Rd Floor, Earnest Vs. Prop. M/S. Vipinkumar & House, Ncpa Marg, Brothers, 42-44, Vithalwadi, Mumbai Pin:400021 Near Tel. Galli, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai. Pin:400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.03.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & AnujFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…s.1,33,05,834/- is not liable to be disallowed in view of the provision u/s 69C of the Act. It is also argued that the gross profit ratio of the preceding year are liable to be considered for the addition in view of the law settled in M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. 58 ITD 428 and Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions and argued that the present case is not a case of information received from the DGIT Inv. wherein certain parties we…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Dhanraj Murpana, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2610/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-14(1), Shri Anil Dhanraj Murpana, 02Nd Floor, Earnest House, 308, Adhyaru Industrial बनाम/ Nariman Point, Estate, New Sun Mill Vs. Mumbai-400021 Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaapm7660G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None

Section 69

…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 cloth and s…