Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

Batliboi Inviornmental Engineering Ltd, Kalyan vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue and that of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Batliboi Environmental D C I T – 14(1)(1) Engineering Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent A C I T – 14(1)(1) M/S. Batliboi Environmental Room No. 460, 4Th Floor Engineering Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent

…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. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was finding of fact on record that no purchase were made at all, counsel for the revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in case of ACIT (OSC) Ward 5(3) Nadiad…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. K. Ashok Kumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

…xtent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decisions held by the Hon’ble ITAT’s C-Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428). K. Ashok Kumar & Co. ITA no.6665, 6239, 6666, 6240, /Mum./2013 ITA No. 3391, 4630/Mum./2014 iii) The appellant craves leaves to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. Assessee’s Appeal: The common grounds of appeal as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT- A-25, Mumbai, erred In…

ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shailesh L. Chheda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Shri Shailesh Lakhamshi Room No.219, Chheda, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Shop No.04, Narayan Vs. Mumbai-400007 Buildg. S.V. Road, Opp. Central Bank, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacpc0733G Shri B.S. Bist-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None

…d, we find that while coming to a particular conclusion, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) placed reliance upon various judicial pronouncements like the decision of the Tribunal in Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.), Jitendra T. Adnani, order of the First Appellate Authority dated 26/03/2012, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxman.com 385 (Guj.), State Bank of India vs S.K. Sharma AIR 1996 SC 364 (SC), G.T.C. Industries Ltd. vs ACIT (65 ITD 380)(Bom.), ACIT vs Tribhovandas Bhimji Jhaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (Bom.), Sanjay Oil Ca…

Sai Sarnam Engineers, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(4) Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year 2009 – 10 Income Tax Officer, 2Nd Floor, M/S Sai Sarnam Engineers V. Flat No. 1105-1106, Pleasant Park Ward 2(4) Kalyan, Mohan Plaza, Yogi Hills, Mulund – West Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Mumbai – 400 080 Kalyan – West – 421 301 Pan No.Aaefs 0726 K (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul K. Hakani & Shri Sashank Dundu Respondent By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17 .02.2017

…Sarnam Engineers unverifiable / Hawala Dealers. The disallowance @ 25% out of unverifiable purchases from Hawala dealers had been upheld in the following cases: (1) Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT ( 2008) 316 ITR 274 (GUJ) (2) Vijay Protein 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.26,38,470/- works out to Rs.6,59,617/- is sustained and the same is added to the total income of the asse…

Kinjal Construction Co. & Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is party allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Ito 18(2)(4) Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office Room No. 109, Piramal No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Chamber, 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Mumbai-400012. Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 21(2)(2) M/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Kinjal Construction Co. & ITO 18(2)(4) Chirag Construction Co. (JV), Office Room No. 109, Piramal No. 101, 1st Floor, Prathamesh Chamber, 1st Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Mumbai-400012. Dadar, Mumbai-400028 PAN: AAAAM8709M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITO 21(2)(2) M/s. Kinjal Construction Co. & Room No. 110, 1st Floor, Chirag Construction Co. (JV), Office No. 101, 1st Floor, Prathamesh Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Apartments, Old College Roa…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

…ax. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the case of Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO [IT appeal Nos. 2801 & 2937 (Ahd) of 2008, dated 20-05-2011] and also made reference to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. Asstt.CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). On appeal by the Department, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held as follows : "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…

Refrigerated Deistributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

Refrigerated Deistributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

Refrigerated Deistributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

Refrigerated Deistributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

Refrigerated Deistributors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Refrigerated Distributors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

…such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case of Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and further approved the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, ITAT in the case of Vijay Proteins (58 ITD 428). 10. When a query was put to learned Sr. DR whether any profit rate in the similar trade can be verified. He could not answer. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed complete chart of comparative gross profit for the year 2005-2012 and also filed a chart of addition on account of unproved purchases, which are as under: -…

ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Lifetchniques, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be Dismissed

…3,67,390 Thereafter, the Assessing Officer by giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and finding no non-genuineness of the purchases added the peak amount of purchases or 25% of such purchase in view of the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 ITD 428 Ahd) to the tune of Rs.37,68,034/- to the income of the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who considered the 10.91% of the profit on the total alleged bogus purchase of Rs.43,67,390/- i.e. to the tune of 3 A.Y. 2011-12 Rs.4,76,482/-. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.…

Mahavir Construction Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

…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. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was finding of fact on record that no purchase were made at all, counsel for the revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in case of ACIT (OSC) Ward 5(3) Nadiad…

Reshma Emterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) 4. On the other hand, assessee had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the following grounds: 5 Reshma Enterprises “On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT (A)-25, Mumbai, erred in directing the A 0 to make an ad hoc addition of Rs. 530,699/- (representing 10% of the purchases alleged to be bogus by t…

Magoxy Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginger Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

…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. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was finding of fact on record that no purchase were made at all, counsel for the revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in case of ACIT (OSC) Ward 5(3) Nadiad…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) 4. On the other hand, assessee had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the following grounds: 5 Reshma Enterprises “On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT (A)-25, Mumbai, erred in directing the A 0 to make an ad hoc addition of Rs. 530,699/- (representing 10% of the purchases alleged to be bogus by t…

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad, in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) 4. On the other hand, assessee had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order on the following grounds: 5 Reshma Enterprises “On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT (A)-25, Mumbai, erred in directing the A 0 to make an ad hoc addition of Rs. 530,699/- (representing 10% of the purchases alleged to be bogus by t…

Kinjal Construction Co. & Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

…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. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was finding of fact on record that no purchase were made at all, counsel for the revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in case of ACIT (OSC) Ward 5(3) Nadiad…

Allied Engineers and Elastomers, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S Allied Engineers & Income Tax Officer-18(1)(1), Elastomers, Earnest House, बनाम/ 404-A, Waghwadi, Mumbai Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aahfa7945H

…Taxman 171 (Mag)(Bom) viii. ITO V/s Eagle Impex (ITA no. 5697/Mum./2010) ix. J.H. Metals V/s ITO 77ITD 71 (ASR)(TM) x. G.G. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL v/s DCIT 104 TT) 809 (Mum) xi. ITO v/s Surana Traders 921TD 212 (Mum) xii. M/s Vijay Protiens Ltd. V/s ACIT 58 ITD 428 (ITAT) Sanjay Oil Cake Industries vis CIT 3161TR 274 (Guj) xiii. CIT V/s Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt Ltd. 3551TR 290 xiv. CIT V/s G.A,nandarajan 2281TR 664 (Kerala) 5 Allied Engineers and Elastomers The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), considering the aforesaid judicial pronoucements held that the estimation, varies with the nature of busi…