VISP(P) v. CIT Indore

186 CTR 218High Court2004#9710 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69CSection 132Section 101

Issues it is cited on

section 101documents seizedaddition u/s 68concealment of incomecross objectionaccommodation entrysection 69csection 133asection 132(4)section 271(1)genuineness of the transactionsection 10

Judgments citing VISP(P) v. CIT Indore

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2682/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2681/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2677/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2676/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2671/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2670/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1),, MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2669/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2665/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 2669/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 2670/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 2671/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) I.T.A. No. 2677/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2676/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2681/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2682/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) DCIT, CC-5(1), M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1928, 19th Floor…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…e decision of Hon supported by the decision of Hon’ble Raj High Court of India (2002) ble Raj High Court of India (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 420 MP High Cou 178 CTR (Raj) 420 MP High Court in the case of VISP(P) vs.CIT rt in the case of VISP(P) vs.CIT Indore (2004) 186 CTR 218(MP) Indore (2004) 186 CTR 218(MP). b) Mere filing of copies of purchase bills without any documentary b) Mere filing of copies of purchase bills without any documentary b) Mere filing of copies of purchase bills without any documentary evidences in support of purchases and payment through account evidences in support of purchases and payment thr…

L,OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this ground of appeal allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7204/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhl‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Circle-7(1)(2) A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Aayakar Bhavan, Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, M.K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Vs. Pan: Aaacl0738K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Seth (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27 .07.2020 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Seth (AR)For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…its duty to prove the genuineness of the transaction and identity & creditworthiness of the lenders. This view is supported by the decision of Hon‟ble Raj. High Court of India (2002) 178 CTR (RAJ) 420 MP High Court in the case of VISP(P) vs. CIT Indore (2004) 186 CTR 218 (MP). 4.7 Therefore, on the facts and findings in the case and considering the assessee‟s submissions in the matter, the assessee has claimed unjustified goodwill of Rs. 8,27,60,777/- towards purchase of running business from M/s Rahul Healthcare on „Slum Sale‟ basis. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 8,27,60,777/- is treated as unexplained investment wit…

ITO 19(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MUKESH C. SANGHVI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-19(2)(3), Mumbai Vs Shri Mukesh C Sanghvi Prop M/S Rajendra Steel & Alloys Room No.6, Ground Floor, 79, 2Nd Pathan Street, 5Th Kumbharwada Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Anzps6511Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69C

…arties. . (b) The assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Raj. High Court of India (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 420 MP High Court in the case of VISP(P) vs. CIT Indore (2004) 186 CTR 218 (MP). (c) The payment made by account payee cheque itself is not sacrosanct and it would not make an otherwise non-genuine transaction into a genuine transaction as held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Prashant (P) (1994) 121 CTR (Cal) 20 and the view was supported by the Hon^ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kachwala Gems vs.…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

ITA 4813/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat K PatelFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e assessee, it is its duty to provide the correct address or contact modes of' the alleged suppliers. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Raj High Court of India (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 420 MP High Court in the case of VISP (P) Vs. CIT Indore(2004) 186 CTR 218 (MP). b). Mere filing of copies of purchase bills without any documentary evidence in support of purchases and payment through account payee cheque cannot be conclusive in a case where genuineness of transaction is in question. c). The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prashant (P) ( 1994) 121 CTR (Cal)20, has held that even payment of a…