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 366,005 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur vs. Mesers Balaji Rice Industries, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 181/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…impliedly holding a conviction that the assessee had purchased the goods in question not from the aforementioned hawala parties but from the open/grey market, therefore, relied on the order of the ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) and made an addition of Rs. 1,71,16,444/- i.e @ 25% of the value of impugned purchases of Rs.6,84,65,775/-. Also, the A.O being of the view that as the assessee had not made purchases from the aforementioned seven parties, therefore, he made a further addition of Rs.25,69,200/- towards peak purchase credit as was running in the accounts of…

Mesers Balaji Rice Industries, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 168/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…impliedly holding a conviction that the assessee had purchased the goods in question not from the aforementioned hawala parties but from the open/grey market, therefore, relied on the order of the ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) and made an addition of Rs. 1,71,16,444/- i.e @ 25% of the value of impugned purchases of Rs.6,84,65,775/-. Also, the A.O being of the view that as the assessee had not made purchases from the aforementioned seven parties, therefore, he made a further addition of Rs.25,69,200/- towards peak purchase credit as was running in the accounts of…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur vs. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Neora, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 15/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…ce of Rs.1525/- per quintal quantified the value of the unaccounted sales at an amount of Rs.46,21,97,000/- (303080 quintals X Rs. 1525 per quintal). Thereafter, the AO relying on the order of the ITAT, Ahmadabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) worked out the addition as regards the suppressed sales @ 25% of value of the unaccounted sales and made a consequential addition of Rs.11,55,49,250/-(46,21,97,000 X 25%). Also, the A.O made an addition of an amount aggregating to Rs.1,59,41,676/- that was shown by the assessee in the name of four sundry creditors, viz. (i) M/s. Shivshankar…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers P.D. Rice Udyog, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 11/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…- as bogus. 4.1 The A.O after treating the impugned purchases in question as bogus rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s.145(3) of the Act. Relying on the order of the ITAT, Ahemdabad in the case of in the case of Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.), the A.O impliedly being of the view that the assessee had purchased the goods in question not from the aforementioned tainted parties from whom only bills were procured for routing the same through its books of accounts, but had factually procured the same from open/grey market, thus, made a disallowance of Rs. 9 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. D…

Mesers P.D. Rice Udyog, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 210/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

…- as bogus. 4.1 The A.O after treating the impugned purchases in question as bogus rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s.145(3) of the Act. Relying on the order of the ITAT, Ahemdabad in the case of in the case of Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.), the A.O impliedly being of the view that the assessee had purchased the goods in question not from the aforementioned tainted parties from whom only bills were procured for routing the same through its books of accounts, but had factually procured the same from open/grey market, thus, made a disallowance of Rs. 9 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. D…

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

…corresponding sales are not doubted it is only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases which can be considered 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 fil…

Ram Ujagir Ram Sabda Pandey, Mumbai vs. Circle 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with the above directions

ITA 2254/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 33(6)Section 69CSection 69c

…fore the sales tax authorities that they are in the business of issuing bills without actually selling any materials. In view of this A.O treated these transaction of purchase as in-genuine and applying the decision in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd (1996 58 ITD 428 Ahd) 12.5% of these transactions is disallowed amounting to Rs 8,86,900/- u/s 69C. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of A.O assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-32,Mum(NFAC). Ld. CIT(A) also endorsed the views of A.O and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 6. Against this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee preferred an appeal before us . we…

Amit Ashok Golwala, Mumbai vs. ITO - 25 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7265/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 145Section 148

…rrectness and completeness of the bogus purchases. Accordingly he rejected the books of account under section 145 of the Act. Further, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428), the Assessing Officer took the view that profit element involved in the bogus purchases should be assessed as income of the assessee. Accordingly the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element involved in alleged bogus purchases @ 25% and accordingly assessed a sum of Rs. 5,35,385/- in the hands of the assessee. The Learned CIT(A) also confi…

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)

…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." 4.3.4. Similarly, while dealing with an identical issue, in the case of CIT, Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd., I.T.A. No. 63 of 2012, in the order dated 23/10/2012 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 themselves were…

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. Jain Naresh Nemichand HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – 32(1) V. Jain Naresh Nemichand Huf Room No. 702, 7Th Floor 202, Ganjawala Elagance Kautilya Bhavan Gnjawala Lane, Borivali (W) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai - 400092 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aadhj5277K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Department By Vranda U/S. Matkari

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…he account of these bogus suppliers. There are number of decisions by the various courts, where 100% to 5% disallowance of bogus purchases, have been upheld. Particularly the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Vijay Protein Ltd. vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 and N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (4 SOT 0479 (Ahd) are landmark decision on this issue. However, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases, has to be based on the facts of each case, hence the same cannot be generalized in every case. The decisions rendered in the cases of Vijay Protein Ltd. (supra) and N. K. Protein are distinguishable. In…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 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 Pronounce…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बऩ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND 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 बनधम / V/s. .……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT,Cir.-6, Pune, आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.06 to 08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant DCIT,…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बऩ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND 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 बनधम / V/s. .……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT,Cir.-6, Pune, आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.06 to 08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant DCIT,…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बऩ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND 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 बनधम / V/s. .……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT,Cir.-6, Pune, आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.06 to 08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant DCIT,…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बऩ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND 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 बनधम / V/s. .……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT,Cir.-6, Pune, आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.06 to 08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant DCIT,…

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)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बऩ” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND 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 बनधम / V/s. .……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT,Cir.-6, Pune, आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.06 to 08/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 to 2011-12 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant DCIT,…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat vs. Vimalchand Manikchand Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 119/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…e appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at @ 5% inspite of the fact that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 4,20,34,971/- being @ 25% of the total bogus purchases, referring to the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. (55 TTJ 76), wherein 25% of the unverifiable With CO No.8 to 10/Srt/2020 Vimalchand Manikchand Jain purchases were held to be reasonable amount of disallowance of expenditure? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which is different and distinct from the facts of the assess…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat vs. Vimalchand Manikchand Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…e appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at @ 5% inspite of the fact that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 4,20,34,971/- being @ 25% of the total bogus purchases, referring to the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. (55 TTJ 76), wherein 25% of the unverifiable With CO No.8 to 10/Srt/2020 Vimalchand Manikchand Jain purchases were held to be reasonable amount of disallowance of expenditure? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which is different and distinct from the facts of the assess…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat vs. Vimalchand Manikchand Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are partly allowed and the grounds raised in Cross Objection by assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…e appeal of the assessee and estimating disallowance at @ 5% inspite of the fact that the AO has made the addition of Rs. 4,20,34,971/- being @ 25% of the total bogus purchases, referring to the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. (55 TTJ 76), wherein 25% of the unverifiable With CO No.8 to 10/Srt/2020 Vimalchand Manikchand Jain purchases were held to be reasonable amount of disallowance of expenditure? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in relying upon the case of M/s Mayank Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. which is different and distinct from the facts of the assess…

M/S Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in our considered opinion the order of the Ld

ITA 2171/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Riteshkumar Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Vijay Kumar Soni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…ITR 0169 (Del.) ii. CIT Vs. N.R. Porfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 339 (Del.) iii. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) iv. Sanket Steel Traders Vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2801 & 2937/Ahd/2008 dated 20.05.2011. v. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) vi. CIT Vs. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj.) vii. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. 355 ITR 498 (Guj.) viii. Ratnagiri Stainless Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 5(3)(1), Mumbai (2017) 164 ITD 136 (Mum.Trib.). 16. Here it is pertinent to identify whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were alle…