Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT

58 Taxmann.com 44High Court2015#720 most cited

What is Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee makes alleged bogus or hawala purchases but subsequently makes genuine sales from those purchases, the addition to income should be restricted only to the estimated profit embedded in such transactions, not the entire purchase value.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT · bogus purchases · hawala purchases · accommodation entries · section 68 · section 69C · profit estimation · unexplained expenditure · genuineness of transactions · only profit taxable · 58 Taxmann.com 44

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT

Income Tax Officer 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Transport Service, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5435/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ito 41(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Anil Transport Service Room No.830, Kautilya B-102, Harshad Apartment, E.E. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Highway Behind Everad Nagar Sion Mumbai-400051 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Co No.90/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Transport Service Vs Ito 41(1)(1) B-102, Harshad Apartment, Room No.830, Kautilya Bhavan, E.E. Highway Behind Everad Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400051 Nagar Sion East, Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.V.Dharkar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DharkarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

…ent embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay M Mistry Construction P Ltd (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 Taxmann.com 44),In the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of 6 ITA No.5435/Mum/2025 and CO No.90/Mum/2026 Anil Transport Service RishabhdevTechnocable Ltd., [2020] 115 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay), the Jurisdictional High Court has held that in a case where the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus but the purchases in the…

Shri Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Gandhidham Kutchh vs. The ITO Ward 1, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 62/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near Iffco Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, CIT-D.R
Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ITA No. 62/RJT/2025 (A.Y:18-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 62/RJT/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) Kamlesh Deoraj Jain Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Plot No 35-36, Devashish Gandhidham, Income Tax Vs. Sector-5 Gandhidham 370201 Office, Plot No.32, Sector No.3, Near IFFCO Colony, Gandhidham-370 201 "ायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADOPJ1769Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से…