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#164 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 292,668 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

UMESH KUMAR PANDEY, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/RPR/2026[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Raipur02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 42/Rpr/2026 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Darshana Bhaiya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…ssessee. 2. An attention is hereby invited to the following decisions with regard to addition of purchases 12.5% CIT. 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), The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order dated 18.01.2017 in the case of Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi in ITA No. 2601/Mum/2016 Sanjay Oilcake Industries V. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) Also, recently in the case Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. which came up before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Assessing Officer treated purchases made b…

DCIT-7(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MONSHER FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7002/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethdcit – 7(1)(1) Vs. Monsher Fire Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 126, 1St Floor, 403, Tantia Jogani Estate 403, Tantia Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Jogani Estate, Off. N.M. Joshi Marg, Next Road, To Lodha, Pavilion, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai-400011 Pan/Gir No: Aaccm4650R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…d bogus purchases, since the assessee had procured goods from grey market at lower rates but took bills from hawala dealers. The Court held that the entire purchase cannot be disallowed once sales are accepted. Similar views were taken in Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 ITD 428, Ahd. ITAT) and Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (355 ITR 498, Guj. HC). The consistent principle emerging from these decisions is that where sales are accepted and quantitative stock records are not doubted, the entire purchases cannot be added as bogus. What is taxable is only the profit element embedded in such purchases. Judicial authorities…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S EI INSTRUMENTATION PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms.Janani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Kavitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 148Section 69C

…imilar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Gu)) 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 [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 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.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2384/DEL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…s higher than the gross profit normally shown in the earlier years.” 5.4 25% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases:- 1. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (2008) 316 ITR 274 (Gujarat HC) 2. Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahmedabad) 3. M/s. Nand Kishore MeghrajJewellers, 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. Disallowance @ 25% out of Bogus purchases, was held as a reasonable in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. (supra) in view of the fact that the savings occurred to the…

RAJESH KAPOOR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…benefit from indulging in the practice of, obtaining bogus bills depends on facts of each case. In case, actual purchases in there but from grey market, the such benefit could be quantified for example as held in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd., Hon'ble ITAT (55 TTJ 76 (Ahd.) restricted the disallowance to be 25% of the bogus purchases. If suspicious purchases are there, some Courts have considered disallowance to be restricted to 12.5% as the profit element embedded in it. Where a cut finding is there for dealing in bogus billing for a party who accepted before the Department, then there cannot be any scope for…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…had partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by observing as follows: “6.2 I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer had disallowed 25% of the impugned purchases merely by relying on Vijay Proteins Ltd. (58 ITD 428) and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (supra), without bringing on record any cogent material to substantiate the estimation. The Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 (order dated 20.04.2023) has held that in such circumstances, the disallowance should be restricted only to the extent of the profit element embedded in t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…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 [1996] 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…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…) N.K. 97-101\nProteins Ltd. (earlier known as N.K. Industries Ltd.) Vs CIT has been\nconfirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 769 of 2017.\nITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. on 18 January, 1996 102-143\nEquivalent citations: [1996] 58 ITD 428\nITAT CHANDIGARH in the case of Bhawani Industries Pvt. Ltd 144-154 Vs.144-154\nDy. CIT ITA No. 841/Chd/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22\nPrime Steel Industries Private Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income 155-177\nTax, Patiala in ITA No. 275/Chandi/2024\nDy. Cit, Circle, Patiala, Patiala vs Bhawani Industries Pvt. Ltd., 178-200 178-200\nMandi..…

RAMJIBHAI KESARAJI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 827/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69C

…] – On accommodation entries, only 12.5% disallowance confirmed. vi. Pr. CIT vs. Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. [(2023) 169 taxmann.com 89] vii. Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT [(2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.)] viii. Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. CIT [(1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.)] In light of the above legal proposition and in the interest of justice, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the instant case, we consider it fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the impugned purchase amount of Rs.15,28,644/-. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in…

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…iscal Nullity" is "something that is legally void relating to Public Finance or Taxation" 7. In a similar case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. [ITD 425 ALD.) similar facts are noted whereby bogus purchase is proved and admitted by Hon Die ITAT Bench, Ahemdabad, [1996/58 ITD 428 ALD, did 18/01/1996] Point 19.3 and 21.1 of the said order of ITAT are reproduced as under: Point No. 19.3 "It is well known that purchases are made from open market without insisting for the genuine bills, the suppliers may be willing to sell these products at a much higher rate as compared to the rate of which they may charge in case the dealer…

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ARO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Dcit, Aro Equipments Private Limited Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Vs. Plot No.300, Aro Tower, Building, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aacca8471G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA Nos.3415/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम DCIT, ARO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Circle-1(1), 5th Floor, HSIIDC Vs. Plot No.300, ARO Tower, Building, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PAN No.AACCA8471G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Kunal Aggarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 29.05.2025 25.06.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronounce…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…ee had taken accommodation entries and alleged purchases were not genuine. 5.2 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of M/s Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (10 DTR 153) and Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) has extensively dealt with this issue and came to conclusion that disallowance of 25% of impugned purchases would suffice the matter. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Deepak Dalela Vs. ITO (50 DTR 502) had extensively dealt with this issue. However, in the Misc. Application filed before it, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 1911, PIRAMAL vs. BADAMIDEVI TEJRAJ MUTHA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhriito – 19(1)(1) Vs. Badamidevi 501, 5Th Floor, Piramal Tejrajmutha Chambers, Lalbaug 67, Dr.Mg. Mohimtura Mumbai – 400012. Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwadalane, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Akipk1935E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250

…ay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498(Guj) and in the case of CIT v. 6 Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai 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 [1996] 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…

MITAL POLYPLAST PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 109/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

…ioned parties are not genuine transactions. It is reasonably\nclear and glaringly obvious that the sales invoices claimed to have\nbeen issued by them are fictitious ones. Therefore applying the ratio of\ndecision in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Led. (1996 58 ITD 428 Ahd)\npeak of such purchases or 25% of such purchases whoever is higher\nis required to be disallowed. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, on the basis of information given, the peak has been\ncalculated @ Rs.72,35,329/-The working has been enclosed as per\nannex \"A\" which is part of assessment. For the year under\nconsideration 25% of…

MITAL POLYPLAST PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 108/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

…ioned parties are not genuine transactions. It is reasonably\nclear and glaringly obvious that the sales invoices claimed to have\nbeen issued by them are fictitious ones. Therefore applying the ratio of\ndecision in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. (1996 58 ITD 428 Ahd)\npeak of such purchases or 25% of such purchases whoever is higher\nis required to be disallowed. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, on the basis of information given, the peak has been\ncalculated @ Rs.72,35,329/-The working has been enclosed as per\nannex \"A\" which is part of assessment. For the year under\nconsideration 25% of…

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANIL KISHANCHAND BHATIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 720/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009 Acit-23(1), Mumbai Anil Kishanchand Bhatia Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, D2, 67/68, Green Field Chs, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Near Majas Depot. Jvlr Road Lower Parel. Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aaapb 9588 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 13/03/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…AO has deeply explained the reasons of leaving the penalty and following the ratio explained the reasons of the penalty and following the ratio of decision in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd (1996 5 of decision in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd (1996 58 ITD 428 of decision in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd (1996 5 AHD.), by making addition to the extent of 25% of the total bogus AHD.), by making addition to the extent of 25% of the total bogus AHD.), by making addition to the extent of 25% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 13,16,026/- purchases of Rs. 13,16 3. "Whether on the facts and "Whether on…

ARO EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2514/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 148

…milar 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 [1996] 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(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THANA RAM MANGI LAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…e had taken accommodation entries and alleged purchases were not genuine. 6.2 The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of M/s. Sanjay Oil Cake Industries Vs. CIT (10 DTR 153) and Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. ACIT (58 ITD 428) has extensively dealt with this issue and came to conclusion that disallowance of 25% of impugned purchases would suffice the matter. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Deepak DalelaVs. ITO (50 DTR 502) had extensively dealt with this issue. However, in the Misc. Application filed before it, the Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the c…

Showing 1–20 of 430 · Page 1 of 22

...