How many judgments cite Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT?

430 judgments on BharatTax cite Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (58 ITD 428), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 69C, Section 145(3), Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 142(1).

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 366,314 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 147 Section 69C Section 145(3)Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 133A Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)section 69c accommodation entry section 69 business section 13 document company section 148 total income section 147 section 143(3)

Judgments citing Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

ITO Ward-2(1), Kalyan vs. Smt. Asha Sureshlal Basantani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 2(1) V. Smt Asha Sureshlal Basantani 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza Building Prop. Of M/S. Ashakala Industries Plot No. 27, Industrial Area Wayle Nagar, Kadakapada O.T. Section, Ulhasnagar Kalyan (W), Mumbai -421301 Thane, Mumbai – 421002 Pan: Abipb0299B (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Sajay J. Shethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sajay J. Shethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147

…pellant is rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act. 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 (2008) 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.12,28,500/- works out at Rs.3,07,125 /- is sustained and the same is added to the total income of the as…

ITO -8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Simandar Herbal P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1450/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 8(2)(2) V. M/S. Simandar Herbal Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 622, 6Th Floor Shop No. 86, Dallas Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Gya Mandir Road Mumbai - 400020 Off. S.K. Bole Road Dadar (W), Mumbai -400028 Pan: Aagc0699Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Prayag Jha Assessee By : Department By Smita Verma

For Appellant: Department by Smita Verma

Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 8(2)(2) v. M/s. Simandar Herbal Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 622, 6th Floor Shop No. 86, Dallas Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Gya mandir Road Mumbai - 400020 Off. S.K. Bole Road Dadar (W), Mumbai -400028 PAN: AAGC0699Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Prayag Jha Assessee by : Department by Smita Verma Date of Hearing : 14.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of I…

Mesers Supertech Forgings(India) Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle IV, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

…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). Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus…

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Falcon Architectural Systems P Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4265/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40(1)

…f controversy on the basis of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), and in the case of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. reported in 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Vijaya Protein Vs. CIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). In the said mentioned law, it is well- settled that the profit ratio embedded to the transaction is required to be added to the income of the assessee. In the instant case, sale is not doubted, therefore, the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the total bogus purchase in sum of Rs.31,89,286/-. Taking into account o…

ACIT-22(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajesh H Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5929/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5929/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-22(3) बिधम/ Shri Rajesh H. Sharma 305, 3Rd Floor Piramal B-5, West View, 5. V. Road, Vs. Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps4578L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.Ar) Assessee By: Shri Avinash Ravani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against 100% Made By The Assessing Officer Misinterpreting The Judgement In The Case Of M/S Simit P Seth 656 Itr 461(Guj) & Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Tailed In Substantiating The Purchases Made From Hawala Parties & Ac Rightly A.Y.2010-11 Applied The Ratio Of The Judgment In The Case Of M/S Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 Itd 428 Ahd".

For Appellant: Shri Avinash RavaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle (Sr.AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…e of M/s Simit P Seth 656 ITR 461(Guj) and ignoring the fact that the assessee completely tailed in substantiating the purchases made from Hawala Parties and AC rightly A.Y.2010-11 applied the ratio of the judgment in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 ITD 428 Ahd". 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the CIT(A) erred restricting the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchase from M/s C.R. Enterprises as against 25% made by the Assessing Officer, which is proved bogus in the independent enquiry carried out during course at assessment". 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the…

Pr. CIT- 9, Mumbai vs. Amrin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6238/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepr.Cit -9 V. M/S. Amrin Construction Pvt. Ltd., 8, Sagar Tower, Fair Deal Road {Income Tax Officer – 9(1)(2)} Room No. 205, 2Nd Floor Off. S.V.Road, Jogeshwari(W) Mumbai - 400102 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaeca3216B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Shri Brajendra Kumar

For Appellant: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…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…

The ITO, Ward-7(3), Surat vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Surat

In the result this ground of appeal is also rejected

ITA 1487/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1487/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajkumar Goyal, Ward-7(3), Surat. Prop. Of Balaji Corporation, 201, Keshri Nandan Apartment, Bhothia Sheri, Rughnathpura, Surat – 395003. [Pan: Adtpj 2924 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 17.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)” Dated 29.03.2012 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Unverifiable Purchase Amounting To Rs. 7,91,01,863/-. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of In Difference In Closing Balance Of Rs.8,05,11,522/-. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Be Set Aside & The Assessing Officer ‘S Order Be Restored.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…assessee failed to produce the parties or their confirmation, therefore, the assessing officer made disallowance @ 25% of total purchases by following the order of . Shri Rajkumar Goyal ITA No.1487/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06 Tribunal in Vijay Proteins Vs CIT (55 TTJ 76). The assessing officer worked out the disallowance of Rs. 7.91 Crore. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions by accepting the submissions of the assessee that after eight years of gap the additions cannot be made merely for non-production of the parties. The Ld. DR for the revenue prayed for restoring the order of the assessing officer. 7. On…

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpat Metal Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5125/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5125/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-19(1)(3) बिधम/ Ganpat Metal Industries Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, Shop No.1 Narayan Niwas, Vs. 2Nd Khetwadi Lane Near Matru Mandir Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Alankar Cinema, Mumbai- 400007. 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfg1194B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-07, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition @ 12.5% As Against @ 19.5% Made By The Ao On Bogus Purchases Despite The Fact That The Addition Was Made On Basis Of Credible Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) Based On Information Supplied From Sales Tax Authorities.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…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.” 5.3.4 Similarly, while dealing with an identical issue, in the case of CIT, Vs. Bholanath Poly. Fab (P) Ltd., LT.A. 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 themselves were bogus or whe…

ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shashikant Kumar Arora, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4991/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4991/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito - 21(3)(3) बिधम/ Shashikant R. Kumar Arora R. No. 211, 2Nd Floor, G-40, Shalimar Industrial Vs. Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Estate Nr. King Cirlce Rly. Mumbai-400012. Station, Matunga, Mumbai- 400019. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpa1315M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

…er of controversy on the basis of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 355 ITR 290 (Guj.), Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. reported in 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Vijaya Protein Vs. CIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). In the said mentioned law, it is well- settled that the profit ratio embedded to the transaction is required to be added to the income of the assessee. In the instant case, sale is not doubted, therefore, the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the total bogus purchase in sum of Rs.5,67,884/-. Taking into account, a…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…to tax. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in the case of 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…

Asst CIT Circle-11 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shriji Kraft Decorators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6928/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Vijaykumar Menon

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…such estimation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also relied 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. 5.3.29 In the case of Vijay Proteins (supra), the Hon'ble ITAT was seized with a case of bogus suppliers of oil cakes where 33 parties were found to be bogus by the departmental authorities even though payments were made to the said parties by cross cheques and in fact the A.O. in that case had brought adequate material on record to prove that th…

Asst CIT Circle-11 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shriji Kraft Decorators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6927/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Vijaykumar Menon

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

Asst CIT Circle-11 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Shriji Kraft Decorators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6926/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Shri Vijaykumar Menon

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

Dineshkumar Chunilal Shah -HUF, (Prop. M/S. Amar Steel Corpo.), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed in terms and conditions hereinabove

ITA 2165/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 147

…amounting to Rs. 1,58,56,966/-. 3 . A.Y. 2009-10 3. Thereafter assesse preferred first statutory appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who did not agree with the contention of the assesse and cited an order of ITAT in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. reported in 55 TTJ 76 wherein it was held fair an reasonable to disallow 25% of the total unverifiable purchases as reasonable amount of disallowance. 4. Now assesse has come before us. Assessee has pressed ground no. 1 and when bench asked him that if assesse is ready for 8% of the addition of total purchases than matter can be heard. 5. On the other hand, assesse cit…

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 148

…such estimation. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon’ble Court also relied 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. 6.2.23. In the case of Vijay Proteins (supra), the Hon’ble ITAT was seized with a case of bogus suppliers of oil cakes where 33 parties were found to be bogus by the departmental authorities even 20 A.Y.2009-10 though payments were made to the said parties by cross cheques and in fact the A.O. in that case had brought adequate material on record…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Metal Impex, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4690/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(2)(3) V. M/S. Metal Impex Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor 23, Kotwala Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 3Rd Khetwadi Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahfm5317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rajkumar Singh Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…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." 6.3.4 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, 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 bogus or whe…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr. Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar, Mumbai

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4689/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(2)(3) V. Shri Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar 196K, Gaiwadi, Jss Road Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor Girgaon, Mumbai - 400004 Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Aadpk8434B (Appellant) (Respondent) Chaitee Londhe Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…imilar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases 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 the case of Pawanraj B…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Meghdoot Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4688/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(2)(3) V. M/S. Meghdoot Enterprise Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor 7, Narayan Wadi Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 86/88, Khadilkar Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aagfm0668N (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…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." 6.4.4 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, 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 bogus or whe…

ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ahmsons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4683/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(1)(1) V. M/S. Ahmsons Room No. 223, 2Nd Floor 11/19, Rukaiya Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Ground Floor, C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aagfa8334F (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…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." 6.4.4 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, 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 bogus or whe…

ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4409/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2805/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2806/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-134, Ground Floor, Defence Tax, Central Circle-19, Colony, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca0929M

For Appellant: Sh. Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 153A

…ing judicial pronouncement: a. PCIT Vs.Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. 2017-TIOL-253-H.C-IT b. PCIT Vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. 292 ITR 444 c. CIT Vs. Arun Malhotra 363ITR 195 d. N K Proteins Vs. CIT 2017-TIOL-23HC-U e. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmadabad) f. CIT Vs. La Medica 117 Taxmann 628 (Delhi) 14. The various decisions cited by the Ld. CIT DR as well as the contention of the assessee before the lower authorities were considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NK Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT in 2017- TIOL-23-SC-IT has confirmed on the similar circumstances addition to the extent o…