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 366,339 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 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

ACIT-27(3), Mumbai vs. Rashmikant V. Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 7409/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7409/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-27(3) बिधम/ Rashmikant V. Shah Room No.423, 4Th Floor, 310/12, Samuel Street, Vs. Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Masjid (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400703. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanps8580L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, 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 Sanjay R. Parikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ali Ansari (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 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." 5.4.3 Similarly, while dealing with an identical issue, in the case of CT, 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 21 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abdul Rauf Bilal Ahmed, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6337/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-21(1)(1), Shri Abdul Rauf Bilal Ahmed, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 401-A, Building House, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. 146, Vs Marg, Mahim (W) Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aatpb3087H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax officer-21(1)(1), Shri Abdul Rauf Bilal Ahmed, 1st floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. 401-A, Building House, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. 146, VS Marg, Mahim (W) Mumbai-400018. PAN No. AATPB3087H Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 26/11/2019 Date of pronouncement : 16/12/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is…

ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Kalyan vs. Nimesh S. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6184/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Nimesh S Desai, 3(3), Kalyan. Vs. C/O M/S Mahendra H Shah & Co., Cas, 12, Shivaji Fort Chs Ltd., N S Mankikar Marg, Sion (East), Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpd8663R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of hawala purchases will lead to abnormal gross profit of 24.31%, which is much higher than that of non-hawala years. Considering the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the order of the Shri Nimesh S Desai 4 Tribunal in Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT 58 ITD 428, which has been subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court restricted the disallowance to 25% of Rs.6,10,365/- which comes to Rs.1,52,591/-. Thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the balance disallowance of Rs.4,57,774/- (Rs.6,10,365/- minus Rs.1,52,591/-). 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the inquiry conducted b…

Shri Rameshkumar Savalachand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5263/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodramesh Kumar Savalchand Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Jain Room No.202, Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor Prop: M/S. Mahalaxmi Steel Industreis Tardeo 53/57, Bhandari Street, Shop Mumbai-400 007 No.4, 1St Kumbharwada Lane Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj0692D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) &

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

…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, P"AT in the case of Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428. 6.9 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CFT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj), upheld the decision of the ITAT, which confirmed the addition @12.5% of the total bogus purchase. Taking into account the facts of the case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that since the purchases were not bogus, but were made from parties other than thos…

Ramesh Kumar Savalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 5679/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250(1)

M/S. Yaelstar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…fore, the purchases amounting to Rs.15,74,67,842/- were treated as bogus on the basis of statement recorded from Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain during the course of search and seizure proceedings. However, applying the ratio of decision in the case of Vijay Proteins 55 TTJ 76 (Ahd-Trib), the AO made disallowed @25% of above bogus purchases of Rs.15,74,67,842/- and made addition of Rs.3,93,66,960/- on which penalty were also initiated under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee has filed an appeal before CIT (A) against the addition so made. However,…

ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ketan Dhirajlal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5560/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

…tax. 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. AssttCIT [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…

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)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. 7.10 In the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.Simit Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj) wherein also it is found that some of the alleged suppliers of steel to the assesses had not supplied any goods but had only provided sale bills and hence, purchases from the said parties were held to be bogus. The AO in that case added the enti…

Mr.Punit Malhotra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

ITA 5537/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Punit Malhotra, The Income Tax Officer, Punit Sales Corporation, 39/43, Ward 17(2) 5, 3Rd Floor, M.K. Marg, Churchgate, Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. M.K. Marg, Churchgate, Pan: Agipm0375L Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.P. Purohit (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2019

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Purohit (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…of proving genuineness of the transaction of purchase by adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [1996] 58 ITD 428. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the action of the Ld. CIT (A) is in accordance with the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully gone through the relevant record including the cases relied upon by the authorities…

Sanghvi Metals, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5879/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 5878 & 5879/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Sanghvi Metals v. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(2) 72, C.P. Tank Road Matru Mandir, Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 007 PAN: AAAFS7992M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing : 19.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. C…

Sanghvi Metals, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5878/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Officer 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indu Hasmukh Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5864/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 32(1)(5) V. Smt Indu Hasmukh Panchal Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor A/9/401, Siddharth Nagar C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Katau Mills Compound Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Highway, Borivali (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Agspp7461Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nikita Sanghavi Department By : Shri Ram Tiwari

For Appellant: Ms. Nikita SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

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…

ITO - 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shripal G. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3011/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) V. Shri Shripal G. Jain Room No. 219, 2Nd Floor 88-92, 1St Pathan Street Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan: Adlpj8781H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ChamariaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…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. 8.12. As the AO concluded that the appellant, has not-purchased from those parties, but considering the facts of the case that the goods have been sold and the assessee offered the profit on sale for taxation, treated the purchases are from the grey market at a lower price which carries higher margin of profit than the one offered to tax. Hon'ble…

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Mumbai vs. Vinod D Vagasia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6162/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Income-Tax Officer Vs Vinod D Vagasia Ward 2(4), Thane, Poonam Nagar, Room No. 12, “B” Wing, Bldg No.C-25 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Chs Ltd, Flat No.102 Wagle Industrial Estate Road Mira Road-401 107 No. 16Z, Ambika Nagar, Pan : Abepv3863H Thane- 400604 Appellant Respondednt

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…by the assessee in earlier assessment years. The ld CIT(A) concluded that the assessee has suppressed the profit by showing the purchases from hawala dealers and mainly relying upon the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd vs ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahd) which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, restricted the disallowance @25% out of bogus purchases as reasonable. The Ld. DR before us, could not show any material so as to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of CIT (A). We uphold the sam…

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Thane vs. Luke Martin Fernandes, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5336/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiito,Ward-1(4) Vs. Luke Martin Fernandes Room No.11 B-2/104, Raunak Park Chs 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Ltd., Kokani Pada B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Pokharan Road No.2 Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Thane West-400 606 Pan/Gir No.Aafpf7705G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO,WARD-1(4) Vs. Luke Martin Fernandes Room No.11 B-2/104, Raunak Park CHS 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Ltd., Kokani Pada B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Pokharan road No.2 Estate, Thane(W)-400 604 Thane West-400 606 PAN/GIR No.AAFPF7705G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by R.Bhoopati Assessee by None Date of Hearing 03/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement 15/10/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against, the order of…

ACIT - 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Sameer V. Juthani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 5691/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sameer V. Juthani, Income Tax – 27(3), 3, Satyam Industrial Estate, R. No. 423, 4Th Floor, Off B.K.S.D. Marg, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Govandi, Deonar, Station, Vashi, Mumbai - 400088 Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aaapj8632K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)

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

…e transaction of purchase by Assessment Year: 2011-12 adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [1996] 58 ITD 428. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the action of the Ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the same is liable to set aside. 5. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the assessee has discharged the prim…

ITO - 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Kumar Jain & Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-

ITA 5690/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), M/S Anil Kumar Jain & Co. Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 190/5283, Sanmati Pant Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Complex, Vashi, Vs. Mumbai - 400075 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aagfa5482L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (AR)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…proving genuineness of the transaction of purchase by adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [1996] 58 ITD 428. The Ld. DR further submitted that Since the AO has made the addition in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are erroneous and liable to set aside. 6. We have carefully gone through the relevant record including the cases relied upon by the authorities below. We are convinced from th…

ITO 27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Manohar Darara, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 5689/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), Shri Ajay Manohar Darara, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, B-136, Ghatkopar Industrial Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Estate, Lbs Marg, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Abkpd4896Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 11.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Proprietor Of M/S Hycon Industries, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Office & School Furniture & Executive Chairs Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,86,598/-. Subsequently, It Came To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had Shown Purchases Amounting To Rs. 1,32,435/-/- From Two Bogus Parties Declared By The Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Who Used To Provide Accommodation Bills Without Supplying Any Goods. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…transaction of purchase by adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition Assessment Year: 2009-10 made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [1996] 58 ITD 428. The Ld. DR further submitted that since the action of the Ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the same is liable to set aside. 6. On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that since the assessee has discharged the prim…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Mahendra B Gandhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5310/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 143(3)Section 147

…e purchases as during search at the office premises, blank signed cheque books, vouchers, blank bill books, letter heads of various concerns were found and it was established that these concerns were floated by the assesses. Relying upon the of Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428 Ahmadabad, the ITAT restricted the addition to 25%, whereas Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held mat once the purchases are bogus and fictitious having given only bill entries, the entire purchases should be added, which by confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing nu SLP of NKPL on 16.01 .2017. 7 3. From above it is apparent that the ratio…

ITO 33 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshad M. Padia, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5821/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Ito-33(1)(5), Shri Harshadrai M. Padia, C-12, 703, Pratyakshakar Khyati Hydraulics, 13, Bhavan, Bkc, Gopal Kunj, Sarojini Naidu Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpp1488Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 08.06.2018 & 11.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Since, Both The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, The Same Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Khyati Hydraulics Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143Section 148

…proving genuineness of the transaction of purchase by adducing cogent evidence, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the addition made by the AO in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. [1996] 58 ITD 428. The Ld. DR further submitted that Since the AO has made the addition considering the profit embedded in the questioned transaction, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and the same is liable to set aside. 5. We have carefully gone through the relevant record including the cases relied upon by the authorities below. We are convinced from the…